Courts can compel scribes to disclose source: Delhi high court

Courts have the power to direct journalists to disclose their source of information, when considered necessary in the interest of justice, the Delhi high court ruled on Thursday in a contempt of court case against The Pioneer.

Quoting from various sources in India and England, a division bench comprising Chief Justice M J Rao and Justice Manmohan Sarin held the daily guilty of contempt for 'recklessly publishing' an article alleging 'abuse of the judicial system by the building mafia.'

However, in view of the apology tendered by the daily's editor and the reporter concerned, the bench discharged them subject to the condition that they publish an unconditional apology, the draft of which would be approved by the court, on the front page the paper within a week.

''In order to be deserving of freedom, the press must show itself worthwhile of it. A free press must be a responsible press. As the power of press is great it must not abuse its power. If a newspaper should act irresponsibly then it forfeits its claim to protect its source of information,'' the judges quoted Lord Denning of the British House of Lords as saying.

The judges also dealt with the question whether truth can be claimed as a defence in a contempt suit. Senior counsel Arun Jaitley, representing The Pioneer, had submitted that publication of imputations which are true would strengthen the institution of the judiciary rather than undermine public confidence. Truth should, therefore, be accepted as a defence even in an action for contempt, he had pleaded. Quoting a 1952 Supreme Court order, Jaitley submitted that if the allegations were true, it would be to the benefit of the public to bring the matter to light.

However, senior counsel Ravinder Sethi, appointed amicus curiae to assist the bench in the case, submitted that truth or justification could not be pleaded as defence. An attempt to justify would itself constitute a fresh contempt, he quoted from several Supreme Court and high court rulings.

Justices Rao and Sarin observed that ''the preponderance of judicial pronouncements is that truth is not to be accepted as defence in contempt.'' The bench, however, added that there was no deciding this question as the respondents had not set up truth as defence, but had tendered an unconditional apology.

The order brought to an end the over four-month-long proceedings which the bench had initiated through a suo moto notice on October 18, 1996. This followed the September 9 report in The Pioneer under the caption 'Court hampering drive against construction mafia'. The report quoted 'a top official of Delhi government' as saying that administrative action against unauthorised constructions was being hampered by the building mafia which, twisting the judicial system to its advantage, was procuring stay orders on demolitions.

Asked by the court to disclose the identity of the government official and also the details of the research undertaken by the daily to verify the allegations, the newspaper at first refused. Later, its counsel submitted that he would disclose the official's name in view of the legal position and 'altered circumstances'. However, in yet another volte face, the daily refused to disclose its source.

As for details of stay orders and court proceedings which hampered the demolition drive against unauthorised construction, the daily had earlier submitted that it was being collected and would be placed before the bench as soon it was gathered.

The bench noted that no particulars or documents, nor evidence of any research prior to the publication, had been placed before it.

''We have no hesitation to conclude that this report has been written in a most reckless and irresponsible manner, without attempting to verify the basis of any of the serious aspersions that have been cast on the judiciary,'' the judges observed.

The lack of research also nullified the newspaper's claim that it had published the article in good faith and in public interest to focus attention on the menace of unauthorised construction.

''Any legitimate criticism, based on factual foundation and available material would even enable or facilitate taking remedial or corrective measures,'' the bench noted. However, in this case, the publication of unsubstantiated allegations only had the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and interfering in the administration of justice, it said.