The Indian Express and Times of India (TOI) published apologies in their Ahmedabad editions on Friday, complying with a recent Gujarat High Court order. The court had criticised the newspapers for inaccurately reporting its remarks in an ongoing case.
On Thursday, the Court had warned that it would issue contempt of court notices if the newspapers did not publish the apologies. As a result, both newspapers featured the apologies prominently on their front pages.
On August 13, a bench consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi issued notices to the regional editors of the Times of India and Indian Express. The court sought their explanations for providing a “false and distorted narration” of the court proceedings in a particular case.
Justice Agarwal remarked that the way the news was presented suggested that the court had already formed an opinion on the right of a minority institution to appoint teachers of its choice while regulating educational institutions run by minority groups.
Chief Justice stated that the newspapers’ actions appeared to be intentional.
“This was a deliberately coordinated effort and a planned approach… It’s improbable that three newspapers would report the same thing in the same manner, differing only in language. The tone of all three articles was identical. The reports were crafted similarly, with no distinction between the Court’s observations and its findings or orders,” she remarked.
In their statements, the papers acknowledged that their reporting had incorrectly suggested that the High Court had resolved the issues concerning the rights of aided minority institutions.
“The newspaper holds the High Court in the highest esteem, and we sincerely apologise to the Court and our valued readers for the error in the reporting,” TOI stated in its apology.
On Thursday, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the apologies submitted by the newspapers in their affidavits.
As a result, the Court ordered the two media outlets to publish apologies in their respective newspapers, ensuring that it was clearly stated that both the reporter and the editor were at fault for misreporting the Court’s observations.
