It was good to learn the Supreme Court has decided to go easy on the Mid Day journos who were facing a prison sentence under the contempt act. An enquiry has been ordered, and let’s hope justice prevails. If their explosive story about the retired judge’s alleged misdemeanours is found to be accurate, then the law should take care of the accused and follow its natural course of justice. And if the story turns out to be yellow and malicious, then the journalists must be ready to face the music, as simple as that.
Two others points. I entirely agree with Outlook’s ed Vinod Mehta when he says that in this war between the press and the judiciary (the two pillars on which this country still manages to stay afloat), it’s the politicians who will have the last laugh. If there’s anyone the netas want immediately fixed, it’s the honest journalists and the high-integrity judges. Which is why this spat must be resolved quickly and fairly.
The other thing is, yes, we do need to revisit the Victorian contempt law, which debars the media from running investigative stories on judges. Because although a vast majority of the judges in our nation are men and women of great honesty and integrity, there are still a few bad apples left, and this comes from the mouth of a retired Chief Justice, no less. And these few taint the image of the rest, and it’s best if they are made to stand for scrutiny. If the judiciary allows itself to be open to examination, it will do its own self a huge favour.
And if some creepy journos are found to take advantage of this situation, and use unfair means, then the punishment for them should also be very heavy. So that the reporters do their homework well, and think many times before meddling with the judiciary.
This case has gone beyond Mid Day, it has opened up a very important discussion as far as justice and democracy go. And I sincerely hope the big result is a suitable amendment in the contempt law. That will be the best possible justice.
3 comments:
Yes you are right. The judges cant think that they are above the law itself. Though these days the media also has been crossing the line so this would really be the ideal case to get both the institutions (that we look upto literally as saviours) in line.
What is journalism? And I don't mean what journalism has been made into now. But what actually is journalism?
Is it writing news, reporting incidents or ensuring that justice happens? According to the dictionary, journalism is superficial writing, or the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.
I think journos have forgotten that they need to report news and not make it. That they need to be opinion-makers, and not hammer opinions into readers' minds till some action is taken.
I dunno if the former chief justice is innocent of misdemeanour charges or not. But should such slander be published without proof? I mean, whatever investigations are being done now should have been conducted before the news was published.
But I guess as the definition states, journalism is business. The TV news channels are not doing anything different either. What's happening with sting operations is deplorable.
So once again...what is journalism?
hi nupur,
from what i know, the publication seems to have done its homework.
the investigations will have to ratify evidence of that. or the lack of it
anil
ps: you are right. journalism is a business like any other.
Post a Comment