“When the lights dim … we turn to the North Star for its guiding light.” These were the glowing words with which Rajkamal Jha, editor-in-chief of the Indian Express spoke of the role of the Supreme Court at the recent Ramnath Goenka awards. Apparently, Rajkamal Jha, and CJI Chandrachud before him, had said many important things about freedom of the press. And if you go by the clips on Twitter, they had made at least two senior BJP leaders in the audience squirm. I just had to go to Youtube and see what the hype was about.
To his credit, Rajkamal Jha in no way picked on BJP governments only. He also mentioned how courts in 2020 had protected journalist Arnab Goswami from being hounded by a state government that was out to get him. I noticed that clips on social media being circulated by liberals have left out this important portion of Jha’s speech. Perhaps because this part would have made the liberals squirm.
Anyway, I wanted to see the whole thing for the sake of our ‘star’ Chief Justice, not Rajkamal Jha. So here are some highlights of what the CJI said.
“A functional and healthy democracy must encourage the development of journalism as an institution that can ask difficult questions to the establishment, as it is commonly known, speak truth to power. The vibrancy of any democracy is compromised when the press is prevented from doing exactly this. The press must remain free if a country is to remain a democracy.“
These are fairly general remarks if you ask me. Even Raghuram Rajan could have easily come up with this stuff. But when you have hype on your side, people will manage to find star quality in them. Or better still, an indictment of the policies of the Modi govt. Just as with Raghuram Rajan.
But what comes soon after makes it all hilarious.
“In recent years, we are also witnessing a rising interest in legal journalism. Legal journalism is the storyteller of the justice system, shedding light on the complexities of the law. However, selective quoting of speeches and judgments of judges by journalists in India has become a matter of concern. This practice has a tendency to distort the public’s understanding of important legal issues. Judges’ decisions are often complex and nuanced, and selective quoting can give the impression that a judgment means something entirely different from what the judge actually intended. It is thus essential for journalists to provide a complete picture of events, rather than presenting a one-sided view. Journalists have a duty to report accurately and impartially.“
Did you catch that? The moment it came to legal journalism, the view of the Chief Justice changed immediately. From being someone who must speak truth to power, the journalist is quickly demoted to a mere “storyteller.” Moments ago, the CJI wanted journalists to ask difficult questions to the establishment. No such luck for those doing legal journalism. They must become mere scribes.
Worse, the CJI seems to look at the rise of legal journalism as some kind of threat. These legal journalists are selectively quoting judges and distorting public understanding of legal issues. Why Justice Chandrachud sir? What happened to ‘speaking truth to power’? Should a legal journalist not ask tough questions to the judiciary? How is it different from a journalist who covers say education or health asking tough questions to the government?
Our constitution provides for the judiciary to be independent. But surely not for a judiciary that is above question. Then why have such a negative attitude towards legal journalists?
Ah! But Justice Chandrachud explains that judicial decisions are “complex.” And that people might get wrong impressions of them. But that excuse is too broad. Everything is complex. A large state like say Karnataka or Gujarat has 60 million people, at par with France or the UK. Every administrative issue in such a state would be complex and nuanced. Maharashtra has 120 million people. If Uttar Pradesh were a country, it would be the world’s 5th most populous. Could the Chief Ministers of all these states dismiss journalists as a threat because every decision they take would be complex and nuanced? Not to mention the Central government itself. They could all accuse journalists of failing to report “accurately and impartially,” or giving a “one-sided view.” What would you say then?
What is hilarious is that the CJI made these two arguments within minutes of each other. He did not realize that he was basically contradicting himself.
I do not blame him though. It is a structural problem that comes from the nature of his work as a judge. Whatever his star qualities, it has been a long time since he has had to battle wits against another person. This does not happen to experts in any other profession. For instance, they would not allow any scientists, no matter how accomplished, to reach a position where other scientists cannot critique their ideas. They would never be called “Your Honor” by others. As a result, they would have to remain sharp. They would generally have noticed such gaping holes in their arguments before someone else pointed them out.
Of course, I could be wrong too. And if Shobha De or anyone else thinks that Justice Chandrachud was in the right here, I would be happy to understand their point of view.
