Bookreviews by Manju Gupta
K.N. Harikumar (Ed.): Courts Legislatures Media Freedom, National Book Trust, India, 190 pp, Rs 200.00
This is a book on the similarities and parallels between the law on contempt of court and privileges of the legislatures, and traces the interactions between the different institutions and sections of the society in the context of the constitutional provisions. The editor, a journalist and current affairs commentator, has compiled together the contributions of various writers on different facets of the relations between the judiciary, the executive, the legislatures and the public in the context of press and media freedom and their sources and implications for the civil society and democratic polity.
Fali S. Nariman, in his article in the opening chapters of the book under review, argues persuasively that the legislatures cannot use their privileges and powers to punish for contempt in an arbitrary and manifestly perverse manner. According to Nariman, since in the current situation the politician cannot be relied upon to act with discretion and restraint, there is a case for judicial review of legislature'sdecisions in relation to the press. He rightly raises the question that what reason can be cited for not providing the public with all the information about all the proceedings in the legislature regarding the Keshav Singh case wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed that legislature privileges overcome the press freedom clause in the Constitution.
Samar Ditya Pal says that the ?ground realities? of our society are such that we are not yet ready to allow a more liberal interpretation of the law regarding the scandalisation of the court, much less to abolish it altogether. This however raises certain questions: When can our people and the press have the freedom and the participation in governance that is a characteristic of Western nations? Is not our democratic polity and Constitution said to be based on an act of faith of our founding fathers that our poor and illiterate people are mature enough for adult franchise and parliamentary democracy?
Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon argues that when the media presents a one-sided picture and passes judgements in the guise of news report, which is increasingly the case, especially in sensational criminal cases, it is likely to cause difficulties for fair trials to be held. His call for education of the media in judicial processes and judgements as also for a dialogue between the judiciary and the media is timely. But here certain questions crop up: Are not open trials and public scrutiny the very foundation of the modern concept of justice and democracy? Without these, are fair and honest investigations, trials and judgements ever possible?
Reviewing the issues from a historical and politico-social perspective, both Rajeev Dhawan and Prof. Uday Raj Rai argue that freedom of the individual and the press and media in a democracy cannot be curtailed and the judiciary, including court proceedings and judgements and judges, cannot be above public scrutiny and criticism. Rajeev Dhawan argues the case for reform of contempt laws and contends that the contempt law should not be interpreted as giving absolute powers to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, when nothing whatsoever can change. He feels that issues falling under contempt jurisdiction should be tried in ordinary courts under ordinary law. Here one may ask: Which are the areas and issues where the contempt law should be involved and why? What are the limits to restrictions on freedom of speech, of press, of protest?
Prof. Uday Raj Rai pleads that in the privileges issues, the judiciary should go into the facts of the case but should adjust to the new democratic dispensation and be tolerant of public scrutiny and criticism. Now here one may ask, how will the new interpretation be arrived at?
Babu Bhaskar envisages in our Constitution and political system checks and balances as all the institutions involved?the legislatures, the executive, the judiciary and the media?are of equal strength. He however regrets, ?Disconcertingly, the judiciary has a tradition of resorting to methods that betray lack of transparency to perceive its credibility?Media institutions, on their part, must recognise that they have to exercise their freedom within the bounds of sound professionalism.? Here too one has to know when the judiciary can exercise restraint, and why?
On reading the views of various contributors, it seems the balance tilts in favour of the judiciary because none can deny that complete faith in the legislature or executive is hardly possible. The press and the media have their own weaknesses and failings. Now the question that raises its head is: Will absolute power in the judiciary corrupt it absolutely and who will provide protection if the judiciary errs?
In the end the editor concludes that at the moment there is only one option?allow the citizens to participate in policies and policy making by taking control of their own lives.
(National Book Trust, India, A-5 Green Park, New Delhi-110016.)
Comments