1

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA         REPORTABLE     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1683/2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4876 of 2011)

SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & ORS.   Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G.            Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  order  dated  

04.04.2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court.    

3. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid order  

had filed this appeal on which we issued notice.  On service  

of  the  notice,  the  respondent  has  also  entered  appearance  

through counsel.  

4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties.  

The appellants have now filed an affidavit which is on record  

tendering unqualified apology for the publication of article  

in  question  in  Hindustan  Times  on  20.09.2010  out  of  which  

contempt proceedings arise.  

5. The  media,  be  it  electronic  or  print  media,  is

2

generally called the fourth pillar of democracy.  The media,  

in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a  

very  onerous  duty  of  keeping  the  people  knowledgeable  and  

informed.   

6. The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not  

only the people physically but also influences them mentally.  

It  creates  opinions,  broadcasts  different  points  of  view,  

brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of the Government and all  

other governing bodies and is an important tool in restraining  

corruption  and  other  ill-effects  of  society.   The  media  

ensures  that  the  individual  actively  participates  in  the  

decision-making  process.   The  right  to  information  is  

fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of the  

governing process.  The enactment of the Right to Information  

Act is the most empowering step in this direction.  The role  

of  people  in  a  democracy  and  that  of  active  debate  is  

essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy.  

7. With  this  immense  power,  comes  the  burden  of  

responsibility.  With the huge amount of information that they  

process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that  

they are not providing the public with information that is  

factually wrong, biased or simply unverified information.  The  

right to freedom of speech is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of

3

the  Constitution.   However,  this  right  is  restricted  by  

Article 19(2) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity  

of India, security of the State, public order, decency and  

morality and also Contempt of Courts Act and defamation.  

8. The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous  

if check and balance is not inherent in it.  The role of the  

media is to provide to the readers and the public in general  

with  information  and  views  tested  and  found  as  true  and  

correct.   This  power  must  be  carefully  regulated  and  must  

reconcile with a person's fundamental right to privacy.  Any  

wrong or biased information that is put forth can potentially  

damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the person  

or  institution  against  whom  something  adverse  is  reported.  

Pre-judging  the  issues  and  rushing  to  conclusions  must  be  

avoided.

9. This is exactly what has happened in the present case.  

The then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court who has  

otherwise  proved  himself  to  be  a  competent  and  good  Judge  

wherever he was posted during his career was brought under a  

cloud by the reporting which is the subject matter of this  

petition.  His image was sought to be tarnished by a newspaper  

report which was apparently based on surmises and conjectures  

and not based on facts and figures.  The dignity of the courts

4

and the people's faith in administration must not be tarnished  

because of biased and unverified reporting.  In order to avoid  

such biased reporting, one must be careful to verify the facts  

and do some research on the subject being reported before a  

publication is brought out.  

10. We  are  glad  that  the  persons  against  whom  contempt  

proceedings were initiated for a wrong and incorrect reporting  

about  the  then  Chief  Justice  as  aforesaid  have  understood  

their  mistake  and  have  expressed  their  repentance  through  

their advocate and also themselves by filing an unqualified  

apology before us for the wrong done.  

11. On going through the impugned order also we find that  

apology  tendered  before  the  Allahabad  High  Court  was  not  

accepted  only  because  it  was  felt  that  the  same  was  not  

unqualified.  Now, by filing an affidavit they have tendered  

unconditional apology.  

12. The judiciary also must be magnanimous in accepting an  

apology when filed through an affidavit duly sworn, conveying  

remorse for such publication.  This indicates that they have  

accepted their mistake and fault.  This Court has also time  

and again reiterated that this Court is not hypersensitive in  

matter relating to Contempt of Courts Act and has always shown

5

magnanimity in accepting the apology.  Therefore, we accept  

the aforesaid unqualified apology submitted by them and drop  

the proceeding.  

13. With the aforesaid observations, we order for closure  

of  the  proceedings  initiated  against  the  appellants  herein  

under  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  by  keeping  the  affidavit  

filed by the appellants on record with a direction to the  

appellants to publish the apology as stated in the affidavit  

in the first page of Lucknow edition of Hindustan Times to be  

published on 01.09.2011 and also at such other place, wherever  

there  was  any  such  publication,  in  a  daily  issue  of  the  

newspaper at some prominent place of the newspaper.

14. We appreciate the gesture of the counsel appearing for  

the parties and also for the fact they endorse the same view  

as expressed in this order.   

15. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the  aforesaid  

directions and observations.  

.......................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

......................J (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 30, 2011

6

ITEM NO.2               COURT NO.11             SECTION II

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4876/2011

(From  the  judgement  and  order  dated  04/04/2011  in  CACRL  No.20/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)

SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & ORS.   Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G.            Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay and office report)

Date: 30/08/2011  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.

                    Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted.

The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable order.  

(NAVEEN KUMAR)                       (RENU DIWAN)   COURT MASTER                         COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)

7