Vol. VIII | No.

14 | June 2012 | `15

Ethical journalists
need not
worry
-Justice PB Sawant

Press
freedom or privacy?

The Lead

Press
freedom
or privacy?
The debate about the dividing line between the freedom
of the press to report or any subject and the need to
guard the privacy and reputation of individuals is quite
old. Another competing debate in the same context is
the contempt of courts versus the freedom of expression
contest. There can never be any agreement between
the two sides. But recently when the Supreme Court
upheld the order of the Bombay High Court to impose
a penalty of Rs.100 crore on the 24x7 news channel
Times Now the debate was restarted. In this package
of stories, Justice P B Sawant, the learned judge whose
complaint triggered the case speaks out frankly on
the entire matter. In the accompanying pieces, our
writers examine the rising trend of defamation cases,
and the conflict in the context of the contempt law.
The question that survives this debate is very germane
to the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
Are these laws a tool for gagging the media?
4 Critique, June 2012

The Lead

Ethical
journalists

need not
worry

by Kavita Kanan Chandra

and Anugya Chitransh

Justice (Retd) PB Sawant

e is the man who

has
created
a
veritable storm. At the
age of 82, former judge
of the Supreme Court of
India, Justice P B Sawant
is in the centre of Rs.100
crore defamation case
against the 24x7 news
channel Times Now. He
has sued the channel for
defamation. For a channel
that prides itself in tearing
reputations to shreds, this
is a tough battle. It has used
its sister publication the
Times of India to conduct
a full scale debate that
this type of a defamation
suit that demands such
huge damages is actually
an assault on the freedom
of press. But in a candid
interview to Critique at his
Pune home, Justice Sawant
puts the entire controversy
in the right perspective.
Critique, June 2012 5

The Lead
As a judge of the Supreme Court
for six long years, Justice (Retired)
Sawant earned a reputation for
honesty and learning. He served as
the chairman of a commission setup by the Maharashtra government
in 2003 to inquire into allegations
of corruption against the anticorruption crusader Anna Hazare.
He found him guilty of using Rs.2.2
lakhs belonging to a trust for the
purposes of celebrating his birthday at
his native village Ralegan-Siddhi. This
finding remained buried in obscurity
or several years, but then it caught
the headlines when Hazare mounted
his crusade for his Jan Lokpal bill in
full media glare. Justice Sawant was
actually demolishing the reputation of
a man who had occupied centre stage
as the second Gandhi.
He has also served as a Chairperson of
the Press Council of India (PCI). So, he
is well versed with the nuances of the
freedom of the press and the penalties
that follow when the media violates
the rights of the individuals and
organizations by its deeds. Thus, when
he filed the most costly defamation suit
in the history of Indian media for Rs.
100 crore against the Times Global
Broadcasting Company that owns the
24x7 news channel Times Now there
was a feeling that he was overdoing
the bit. For the media seldom gets
penalized to such an extent for its
transgressions.
Usually,
penalty is the equivalent of
a rap on the knuckles.

channel got validated by the highest

court in the land. The Supreme Court
of India upheld the interim order of
the Bombay High Court and directed
the television channel to pay Rs
100crore.
This stirred up a hornets nest within
the journalistic fraternity and the
media business. There were murmurs
of disapproval and debates ensued on
setting up a precedent thus putting
fetters on free media and instilled a
constant fear that punishment could
be heavy even for innocent and
genuine mistakes.
But, Justice Sawant allays all such
fears and on the contrary laments
that the media is increasingly
becoming more commercialized in
an exclusive interview to Critique: A
review of Indian Journalism. He spoke
while recuperating from a recent
bout of illness at his Pune home.
As the interview progressed, the
octogenarian jurist intermittently
needed to pause to drink water and
his hands shook while lifting the
glass. However the mere mention of
his days at Mumbai High Court lit his
face as he reminisced those wonderful
years gone by. He spoke at length on
a wide range of issues related to media
and judiciary. Excerpts:
Critique: How do you look at the
concern among the journalists over the
Supreme Court ruling on your Rs 100

would adversely impact their freedom

of expression?
Justice Sawant: There is no question
for journalists to worry. Only those
who violate laws and ethics of their
profession need to worry. Please see
the Article 19 (1) in the constitution
that grants the right to freedom of
speech and expression. Then see
the clause (2) of the Article 19 that
prevents any person from making any
statement that injures the reputation
of another.
Critique: In case of any unintentional
error, is filing a defamation suit the
only answer?
Justice Sawant: The electronic
media have established some internal
mechanism. But if they do not
conduct with responsibility and some
defamation happens then the said
person is free to approach the court.
People do not know much about the
case and some are talking without
knowing the details. They (Times
Now) were given an opportunity to
correct. When we gave them a notice
for correction they did not hold a
meeting. After the defamation case
was filed against them, they chose
to fight. It was after the Supreme
Court upheld the compensation
for defamation that they held two
meetings with me.
Critique: Does this case reflect any
rift between the judiciary and
the fourth estate?

What crime have the

journalists committed
that they should be on a
contract basis and the other
employees on a regular
basis?

Come to think of it, the

channels offence was
pretty minor compared to
the glaring mistakes that
are frequently attributed to
the pressures of the 24x7
news channel. For 15
seconds the channel ran his
picture instead of running
the picture of Justice PK
Samanta of the Calcutta
high court, while reporting
a story on the provident fund scam
allegedly involving the latter, at
6.30 pm on September 10, 2008.
But justice Sawants act of suing the

6 Critique, June 2012

crore defamation suit against Times

Now. There is a feeling that judiciary
with such high compensation would
encroach on their working and this

Justice Sawant: There is no

question of the judiciary and
media being in conflict. In my
case it was the defamation of
an individual. The judiciary
and media are very much
complementary to each other.
Critique: Whats your opinion
about the role of the media in
present times? Do you think
over the times media has
changed?

Justice Sawant: The role of the

media has always remained the same.
To educate the society, explain to
them the problems before the society

The Lead
and their pros and cons and to guide
them. Media has no doubt changed
its role over the time in spite of its
primary duty to the society. Its now
more inclined towards money and
therefore the sale. Today, the media
has become more commercial. I
wont say purely, but undoubtedly
more commercial.
Critique: You say media is a big
business today
Justice Sawant: Its not a business
but has been converted into a business
by the business houses. Some sections
of the media have always been
blackmailing and earning money
through it. Today its on the increase.
Its a no holds barred situation now.
Youve seen now what has happened
to Rupert Murdochs empire. Some
are exposed, some are not, and thats
the only difference. But one thing is
certain that whether the journalists
voluntarily toe-the lines of their
owners or they are compelled to do so,
but the fact remains that no journalist
can defy the owners. This is true for
the editors and then of course for the
lesser souls.
Critique: Do you think in spite of
all the criticisms media has played
a strong role as fourth estate like
unearthing corruption like 2G scam
and others corruption cases, or in the
case of Jessica Lal and Nitish Katara,
justice was delivered after an extensive
media campaign seeking justice
Justice Sawant: Yes, it has been
playing its role, some of them very
faithfully. Others did not feel any
compunction in utilizing even critical
situations and problems for making
money. This was evident even in the
Godhra genocide.
Critique: What is your opinion on
trial by media?
Justice Sawant: Trial by media
goes on almost always. Even today
its going on everywhere, in all the
cases. As a lawyer, I dont approve
of it. In fact trials should not go on
outside the courts. Its an attempt
to influence the judiciary and the
witnesses. Its against the rule of law.

It interferes with the independence of

the judiciary. Sometimes media has
gone to the extent of almost dictating
what orders the court should pass.

shot down the bill. They said that

instead theyll have their own internal
council. And I understand its now
working under (Justice) J.S. Verma.

Critique: As chairman of the Press

Council of India, you were the one
who advocated the formation of
Media Council

Critique: You had also spoken about

contract service in media and private
ownership of newspapers

both print and electronic media. They

must both come under one umbrella
or if they cant come under one then
there should be a separate council for
electronic media but there must be
and a council along the lines of the
Press Council for print. All electronic
media, including the internet needs
to be monitored. Internet has become
the main media.

Justice Sawant: The editors of

newspapers have almost always
been hired on contract basis. As
far as journalists below editors are
concerned, Im against the contract
system. I want regular employment
because if they are not guaranteed
permanent
employment,
theyll
not be in a position to put in their
work with heart. Theyll be more
loyal. Suppose one commits any
error, any disciplinary action can
be taken against him as against any
other employee. What crime have
the journalists committed that they
should be on a contract basis and
the other employees on a regular
basis? This is also work, intellectual
work. About private ownership, if
the owners only own the newspaper
and keep themselves completely
away from the day to day work, then
whether its private ownership, cooperative or government ownership,
itll not matter. Private ownership
has never been aloof from the dayto-day workings; in fact theyve been
controlling the working of all media,
even electronic media. Then it ceases
to be private and becomes individual
journalism.

Critique: So you approve of what

the union information technology
minister Kapil Sibal is demanding/
advocating?

Critique: What about the managing

editor? Is it not his work to maintain
the owners interest while protecting
the editorial freedom?

Justice Sawant: Of course. I have

been advocating the same since I was
the chairman of the Press Council and
that was the time when Kapil Sibal
was nowhere. I had even drafted a bill
of both the councils together, a media
council to monitor both print as well
as electronic media and submitted
to the Broadcast Ministry. At one
time, it came under discussion when
Sushma Swaraj was the minister. She
was taking interest in it but electronic
media owners rallied round and then

Justice Sawant: In a privately

owned media unit, managing editor
is no different from any other private
employee. Merely giving a different
designation does not change his duty
or loyalty to the owner. Sometimes
the inconvenient editors, when they
are not to be sacked, are kicked up to
be managing editors.

Justice Sawant: Yes, it should include

Kavita Kanan Chandra is based in Mumbai

and Anugya Chitransh is based in Pune

Critique, June 2012 7