Pre-conditions of Justice

                                                                                                                                                                                                        -Ryan Gerard Wilson

When the Supreme Court rejected a high Court order asking Times Now channel to deposit Rs 100 crore as a pre-condition for hearing its appeal, an entire industry was left stunned. The case involved Justice P B Sawant mistakenly as being involved in the Ghaziabad district court Provident Fund scam because of the similarity of names with another judge. The concerned channel even claimed that the error was corrected within 15 seconds and for five days a public apology was issued to the wronged judge.

This moves opens up a plethora of jurisprudential debates namely weather or not negligence ought to be s strict liability offence or not and the application of the doctrine of proportionality. Surprisingly one of the greatest critics of the Indian media, Justice Markandey Katju who often accuses the media of being anti-people admitted that such a move ought to be reconsidered. Recently Justice Ruma Paul, the former judge of the Supreme Court listed the seven deadly sins which plagued the higher judiciary. The question which faces us now is whether an eight deadly sin can be added to the list. The eight sin being that of over-reaction.

Justice Hidayatullah once noted in the Naresh Mairajkar case[AIR 1967 SC 1 (29)] that Judges can be said to be entirely out of the reach of fundamental rights. Justice Mathew in a Keshavanand Bharti v State of Kerala[(1973) 4 SCC 225] noted that the judicial process is a state action and the judiciary is bound to apply the directive principles in making a judgment. One of the sharpest criticisms of the courts pre-condition is that it was made neglecting the sociological impact on Indian society. The media has been or cynically in the words of Justice Katju has always claimed to been an agent for social change. There industry is in a state of disbelief as the ones who have claimed to amplify juducal reach from the Supreme Court to the common man have been denied those very rights they fight for others. The logical consequence of such a pre-condition would be an obvious denial of a review.

The PCI chief has been campaigning to gain political consensus so that he may be given “teeth” to “correct” the media. Renowned journalist of NDTV, Prannoy Roy has stressed the need for strong defamation laws and had even gone on to say “We live in a punishment-free world as the media”. This move by the supreme court smacks of low sociological foresight.

Justice Katju often says that certain persons form the media haven’t studied law, economics and sociology. Such a move by the court is being vehemently criticized from the legal aspect with respect to overt punishment for an honest mistake followed by a swift apology, from the economic aspect with respect to the incapability of Times Now to pay the amount and the sociological aspect wherein the interaction between the three state organs, the media and the people has been jolted for one of the most frivolous reasons. Justice J S Verma, the former Chief Justice of India wished that Justice Sawant had ignored the lapse for the very reason that his integrity was such that none would have taken it seriously and even if it were for a moment causative of damage to reputation the five day long apology issued would have mitigated the same. Such a measure would in the eyes of many perhaps have been justified if there was an iota of malice. The question raised by this matter is not a comforting one- What can one do if there is a judicial denial of justice?