Media Laws

Prof. Satyaprakash continued from where he left off in the previous class. He spoke about Parliamentary proceedings. He brought forward the topic of Nehru- (Feroze) Gandhi tussle. He added that the two most important amendments to Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act happened during and after the emergency. The two said amendments are Amendment 22 and Amendment 44. He said that the 1956 Act was revived by the Janata Party govt. in 1977 by adding article 361 (A).

He then spoke about one of the most pertinent subjects as far as media professionals are concerned- Defamation. He said every person has a Right to Reputation. And false and defamatory statement against somebody without any lawful justification constitutes defamation. Defamation by spoken words is called slander while Defamation by written words is called libel. Under the Indian Penal Code, there can be civil and criminal defamation.

He further spoke about technicality of this law. Section 499 of the IPC deals with the criminal defamation while section 500 deals with its punishment.

He raised some questions regarding what kind of publication will constitute defamation. The stress was on the phrase ‘lawful justification’. If a newspaper publishes that a said person has committed a crime based on the description by police, then even if the person is acquitted by a court of law later, the person cannot sue the publication.

He gave the example of Justice Verma commission and added that while criticism is fine, defamation is not.   

Media Laws

Mr. Satya Prakash in his lecture on 11 September discussed cases of the Contempt of Court. He began by giving the example of the ‘Wah India’ case where Madhu Trehan, Contributing writer in Indian Express had published a survey on Delhi High Court judges.

The results of the survey apparently casted aspersions on the image of the judges and lowered their integrity. The High Court then issued a case of contempt of court against Indian Express for publishing malicious content without any evidence. This led Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief Indian Express and Madhu Trehan to render an unconditional apology to the Court.

Highlighting another case of Contempt of court in Gujarat, Mr Prakash gave the example of a sting operation by Zee News. In this case Zee News paid bribes to senior advocate Harish Salve to issue warrants against the then Chief Justice V.N.Khare.

Mr. Prakash further highlighted that the Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 states that publication of any matter, whether in the form of spoken or written words or signs or visible representation or any form that scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court leads to Contempt of Court.

Media Laws

Mr. Satya Prakash in his lecture on 11 September discussed cases of the Contempt of Court. He began by giving the example of the ‘Wah India’ case where Madhu Trehan, Contributing writer in Indian Express had published a survey on Delhi High Court judges.

The results of the survey apparently casted aspersions on the image of the judges and lowered their integrity. The High Court then issued a case of contempt of court against Indian Express for publishing malicious content without any evidence. This led Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief Indian Express and Madhu Trehan to render an unconditional apology to the Court.

Highlighting another case of Contempt of court in Gujarat, Mr Prakash gave the example of a sting operation by Zee News. In this case Zee News paid bribes to senior advocate Harish Salve to issue warrants against the then Chief Justice V.N.Khare.

Mr. Prakash further highlighted that the Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 states that publication of any matter, whether in the form of spoken or written words or signs or visible representation or any form that scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court leads to Contempt of Court.