The Meghalaya High Court held the Editor and Publisher of Shillong Times newspaper guilty of contempt.
What is the case about?
It relates to the State government's unilateral decision to withdraw certain facilities to retired judges without consulting the court administration.
After the matter was not resolved on the administrative side for 2 months, the court initiated suo motu proceedings.
The following court order issued some directions, seeking better facilities for retired judges and their families.
It called for extending facilities, including protocol services and domestic help, and reimbursing communication bills up to Rs.10,000 a month and a mobile phone worth Rs.80,000.
Soon, two reports were published in The Shillong Times, criticising the court's directions and calling them “judges judging for themselves”.
The court thus found the editor and publisher guilty of contempt of court and also imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh each.
It ruled that in case of non-payment of the penalty in a week, the two will be imprisoned for six months and the paper “banned”.
Why is the order contentious?
The court's move seems to be a heavy-handed response to comments in the newspaper on the court’s earlier orders.
Worryingly, there was an explicit threat in the order to ban the newspaper and jail them if they fail to pay the fine.
Courts are empowered to decide whether a publication scandalised or tended to scandalise the judiciary or interfered with the administration of justice.
However, there is no legal provision for an outright ban on it.
On a different note, the court could have ignored the overzealous comments made by activists or journalists, instead of taking it offensive.
This would have served the cause of preserving the dignity of the higher judiciary.
However, in the case of Patricia Mukhim, the Editor of Shillong Times, the court has remarked that the newspaper had always attacked individuals and institutions.
It had published propaganda calling for bandhs and “was always working against judges and the judicial system”.
Here, it is open to the court to try a case of contempt in an abstract/summary manner.
However, the use of personalised views of the publication’s past record to decide on contempt of court is questionable.
The contempt law must not be used, or seen to be used, to suppress dissenting views in the country.
