In two cases involving CNN IBN-Cobrapost and the ToI, the judiciary took 10 and 20 years respectively to decide cases of civil and criminal defamation.
…the problem for journalists is that it can be used against them when public figures and celebrities want to stop media scrutiny
Although the judgment has declined to find newspaper managements guilty of contempt, it has settled 4 questions of law which will have far reaching implications for journalists and newspapers in India.
BY PRASHANT THIKKAVARAPU| IN JUDGEMENTS |06/06/2017
A High Court judge says an apology for defamation is often better than damages. The argument is intriguing, but flawed.
Justice Endlaw fell back on a far-reaching principle rather than jurisdiction to dismiss the case before him,
It falls for the specious arguments put forward for a media gag by three lawyers accused of sexual harassment.
But the case shows how contempt is misused by the courts to crush critical reports quickly while the final ruling takes years to come.
In their Udta Punjab and Perumal Murugan rulings, the courts missed an opportunity to lay down some fundamental principles
IN JUDGEMENTS |21/06/2016
Twenty-two years…18 years…that is how long the courts take to settle defamation cases which are becoming increasingly routine and frivolous.
The central flaw in Justice Dipak Misra’s criminal defamation ruling is equating right to reputation with right to free speech as a fundamental right.
Subscribe To The Newsletter

In observance of National Press Day today Rajasthan Patrika carried  a blank editorial saying that it was a day meant to celebrate independent  and responsible journalism. But in Rajasthan this was endangered by the black law the state government was seeking to introduce. It said it opposed a law which amounted to the murder of democracy.                                        

 Zee News has rolled up its sleeves  to do battle on behalf of the BJP as the Gujarat elections approach.  On Nov 14 they played the Hardik Patel CD at prime time,  and when it showed precious little that was incriminating the voice over said the channel was not playing some parts of the tape because it was not fit to telecast.  On Nov 15 Sudhir Chaudhary was doing one of his endless piece-to-cameras on the history of the Ayodhya dispute.                                  

View More