Nehru Memorial Museum & Library Society Vs Dr. N. Balakrishnan

When Does Media Reporting Become Contempt

Facts: The Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Society (petitioner) filed a contempt petition against Dr. N. Balakrishnan (respondent) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The petition alleged that the respondent had committed contempt of court by creating an atmosphere of "trial by press." This allegation arose after a news report appeared in "The Hindu" newspaper during the hearing of a writ petition that the respondent was involved in. The news article reportedly gave an impression that the court hearing on a particular date was a standalone event and did not clarify that the hearings were ongoing daily. The petitioner claimed this misrepresentation influenced public opinion and undermined the court’s authority.

Dispute:The main issue was whether the newspaper report that publicized the ongoing case and the respondent’s complaints amounted to contempt of court by creating trial by media. The petitioner argued that the report wrongly suggested the court was delaying justice and unfairly influenced public perception against the petitioner. The respondent countered that the report merely reflected facts that were already presented openly in court and that the media report was based on judicial proceedings and thus protected from contempt under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent also argued that there was no attempt to influence the court's decision as the report did not comment on the legitimacy of the charges or the merits of the case.

Legal Discussion & Reasoning:

Trial by Media and Contempt: The court explained that trial by media occurs when the media tries to influence the court by asserting what the court’s decision should be. However, a mere report, which is fair and accurate and based on judicial proceedings, is not contempt.

Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This section excludes fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings from contempt. Since the report was based on information already in court records and was a part of the judicial proceeding, it did not constitute contempt.

Freedom of Speech and Media Role: The court recognized that freedom of speech includes the right to express opinions through the media. The law and its recent amendments, especially Section 13 of the Contempt Act (with the defense of truth and limitation on imposing sentences for technical contempt), reflect a balance between protecting court authority and upholding freedom of expression.

Precedents: Several earlier cases were cited. Notably, the Bombay High Court in Vijay S. Mallya vs Bennett Coleman held that media reporting based on court pleadings is not contempt. Similar views were echoed in cases where the media reported facts from police charge sheets or judicial proceedings without unfair criticism.

Public Domain and Right to Know: The court observed the public’s right to know about judicial proceedings and that criticism or unfavorable portrayal in the media does not automatically amount to contempt unless it poses a clear and present danger to justice administration.

No Substantial Interference: The court emphasized that contempt requires deliberate or willful interference with the court's authority. A newspaper article expressing grievances or opinions without such interference is insufficient for contempt jurisdiction.

Decision: The Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the newspaper report in question did not amount to contempt of court. The reportage was a fair and accurate reflection of judicial proceedings and did not create trial by media. The petitioner failed to prove that the report interfered substantially with the due course of justice. The court reinforced that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised carefully and only if there is clear contempt, not merely on a party’s insistence. No costs were ordered.

Case Title: Nehru Memorial Museum & Library Society Vs  Dr. N. Balakrishnan

Order Date: 25.10.2010

Case Number: CCP No.380/2010 in WP (C) No.13733/2009

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi