Ahmedabad: On August 13, the Gujarat High Court issued notices to the editors of the Times of India and the Indian Express, accusing them of misrepresenting the court’s proceedings in their reports. The court expressed concern that the newspaper articles created a misleading impression, suggesting that the bench’s observations during a hearing were its final opinion.
The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, was hearing multiple petitions filed by linguistic and religious minority schools challenging amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act. The bench took issue with a report published by the Times of India on August 13, 2024, which bore the headline, “State can regulate minority schools for excellence in education: HC,” and a subheading stating, “Have to give away rights in national interests.” A similar report appeared in the Indian Express.
Chief Justice Agarwal criticised the reports, noting that they presented the court’s observations as though they were official orders, leading the public to believe that the court had reached a final decision. She remarked, “Our observations during the proceedings are part of an open discussion, yet the report made it seem as if we had formed a definitive opinion, which is very unfortunate.”
Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore suggested that the court issue a notice of contempt, while Advocate General Kamal B Trivedi noted that the media often presents a “twisted version” of court proceedings. Chief Justice Agarwal echoed these concerns, lamenting that judicial orders are rarely reported accurately, and when they are, they are often misrepresented.
Thakore further recommended that the court issue an order prohibiting such reporting in the future, noting that the misleading headlines often give the public a distorted view of the court’s stance. He argued that issuing notices to the editors could serve as a deterrent and prevent similar issues in the future.
The court’s notice emphasised that the hearing on the matter was ongoing, yet the news reports suggested a final opinion had been formed regarding the rights of minority institutions to appoint teachers. The bench demanded that the editors explain who authenticated the content of the reports and justify why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for publishing what the court described as a “false and distorted” account of its proceedings.
The editors of both newspapers have been directed to submit their responses by the next scheduled hearing date.
