Kerala High Court's recent judgement strikes balance on rights and responsibilities
- Moa Jamir
The recent verdict of a five-judge bench of the Kerala High Court on 7 November concerning the media’s right to freedom of speech and expression sets timely guardrails for and on media freedom. The main judgement, authored by Dr Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar, recognises press rights while underscoring the importance of responsible reporting, thereby balancing media rights with their corresponding responsibilities.
Rather than delving into the details of the cases—which include a suo motu petition stemming from a 2016 standoff between lawyers and media—the Court distilled the proceedings into a single primary question: “What is the scope, extent and content of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the press/media under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, in the context of reporting facts relating to criminal investigations and cases pending adjudication before various adjudicatory forums in our country ?”
In answering this, the Court examined three critical issues: (i) whether the print and electronic media have unlimited freedom to publish details of criminal cases pending investigation and trial, (ii) whether the Court could impose restrictions on such reporting, and (iii) whether it could frame guidelines on media reporting of criminal cases during investigation and trial.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court unequivocally held that “the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted save by a law made by a competent legislative body, and even thereunder only on the grounds expressly mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.” The grounds include national security, sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign states, and public order.
However, the judgement emphasised that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), like other constitutional rights, is shaped by its interaction with the rights of others and the obligations on the right-holder under the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution’s ideals, values, and concepts, along with the rights conferred on others and duties imposed on the right-holder, collectively define and limit the scope of this right.
In situations where the media’s freedom under Article 19(1)(a) conflicts with an individual’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21, the former has to be seen as controlled not only by the latter, it ruled, adding that the ideals, values, concepts and fundamental duties recognised under the Constitution are equally binding on the media. In other words,while recognising the media’s rights, it underscored that this freedom must be exercised responsibly and in a balanced manner, especially in contexts where individual rights are concerned.
The Court also held unanimously that in reporting criminal investigations or cases pending adjudication, media freedom is limited by the obligation to adhere to the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution. “The said principle, coupled with the concept of rule of law, mandates that the final and authoritative determination of guilt or innocence can be pronounced only by a judicial authority,” it stated, observing that the media has “habitually overlooked” the legal presumption of innocence.
Accordingly, the Court censured the rise of “media trials,” which have become increasingly pervasive in recent years, and declared: “The expression by the media of any definitive opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of a party in a criminal investigation or a case pending adjudication, before an authoritative pronouncement is made by the adjudicatory forum concerned, would not get the protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
Deference to this ‘declaration of law’ would help prevent unnecessary breaches of fundamental rights and, it is hoped, lead to a new era of responsible journalism. In essence, the judgement affirms two key points. The right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) can only be restricted by law from a competent legislative body, and solely on the grounds explicitly stated in Article 19(2). However, the media also has a constitutional duty to exercise its rights with responsibility, striking an optimum balance between freedom and accountability. In doing so, the verdict provides a vital framework for and on media freedom.
For any feedback, drop a line to jamir.moa@gmail.com
