[op-ed snap]Poll-time censorship

Mains Paper 2 : Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters |

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Nothing Much

Mains level : Valuing freedom of speech over defamation claims by political candidates


CONTEXT

The Bengaluru civil court’s blanket order restraining 49 newspapers, television channels and other media outlets from publishing anything ‘defamatory’ about Tejasvi Surya, the BJP’s candidate for the Bengaluru South Lok Sabha constituency, is contrary to the law and the Constitution.

Violation of free speech

  • The temporary injunction violates the basic principle in free speech law that bars ‘prior restraint’ or pre-censorship of any publication, including the media.
  • As recently as in 2017, a Supreme Court Bench made it clear that pre-broadcast or pre-publication regulation of content was not in the court’s domain.
  • In R. Rajagopal (1994), the court noted that there is no law that authorises prior restraint.

Failing Injunction Test

  • The existence of a prima facie case is a precondition for an interim injunction, and a restraining order may be obtained only if some material deemed defamatory has been published, and when further publication ought to be prevented.
  • Arraying print and electronic media outlets that had not previously disseminated anything defamatory about an individual fails this test, rendering any injunctions obtained against them illegal.

Not substantial objections

  • The allegations that have aggrieved Mr. Surya seem to originate in an individual’s opinion on him on Twitter
  • It is possible that this piece of information was or is likely to be used against him by his electoral rivals.
  • However, this cannot be a reason for a public figure — and a candidate of a major political party, even a debutant, is definitely one — to claim a right to gag the entire media from writing about him.
  • Even if the argument is that the order only prevents ‘defamatory’ content and not responsible reporting or criticism, that doesn’t justify a judicial gag order, as it may be used to prevent the media from writing anything adverse to his campaign.
  • It may also prevent defendants in a future proceeding from using ‘publication of the truth in the public interest’ as a defence.

Conclusion

Requests for omnibus restraining orders against media outlets seem to find favour with some civil judges in Karnataka.  The Karnataka High Court or the Supreme Court must examine this trend and strike down such blanket gag orders.

Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.
  • Subscribe

    Do not miss important study material

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
Notify of