TALES OF TRAVESTY
DR. JITENDRA SINGH
At a function to honour the famous cartoonist Shanker, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who was the chief guest on the occasion turned towards the satire carricaturist known for his punch directed at Nehru and said, “Shanker, keep doing the good work that you are doing. And thanks to you because you always manage to pull me down a peg or so !”
The recent Supreme Court decision refusing to lay down any specific guidelines for media functioning and instead advising the media to draw its own “Lakshman Rekha” atonce conjures up the importance of self-code more than a legal code to be followed both by the men in public life as much as by the men in media. While those in public life ought to cultivate higher tolerance, those in media ought to practise higher restraint.
The Supreme Court bench headed by S H Kapadia significantly refused to frame guidelines across the board for reporting sub-judice matters and instead laid down a constitutional principle enabling aggrieved parties to seek postponement of publication of court proceedings. At the same time, it also cautioned the media not to cross the line so as to protect itself from contempt action. In other words, the Supreme Court too believes that in several sensitive matters, no law of constitution can be as effective as the law of self-descipline and self-regulation.
About the much talked about socalled media trials, the court drops a cue for thought when it says, “Trial by newspaper comes in the category of acts which interfere with the course of justice or due administration of justice…..’’. The apex court’s verdict comes against the backdrop of complaints by aggrieved parties that media reporting of court proceedings came in the way of a fair trial.
Now to be fair to both judiciary as well as media…. the two essential pillars of democracy… this is a very tightrope walk. On the one hand, dissemination of information by media enhances the public confidence and on many an occasion it also induces a sense of urgency for a fair judicial intervention as was witnessed, for example, in the form of suo motto court initiative following media reports of deaths during the recent Amarnath Yatra. On the other hand, reporting of a court trial could run the risk of creating a bias or prejudice in the course of trial as was witnessed, for example, in case of recent mysterious death of the high profile former wife of a former Haryana Minister which was reported as a murder but eventually turned out to be a suicide.
What ultimately matters in the final reckoning is the media’s ability to realise its power and learn how best to use it. Remember the case of Pope who while being driven through Los Angeles city was informed by an accompanying media person that they were passing through a township of prostitutes to which Pope innocently asked, “How many prostitutes are there in this city ?’’ To Pope’s horror, the next day’s newspapers carried the headline, ‘‘Pope inquires about prostitutes’’.
Be that as it may, the bottomline for a mediaperson is that while to report in good faith is often in public interest, not to report in good faith is no less often also in public interest. This precisely defines the ‘‘Lakshman Rekha” for media that serves the common man best. Umapathy drops the poetic cue to file an objectively truthful story even though with fingers soaked in blood, a La Ghalib, ‘‘Likhte Rahe Junoon Ki Hikaayat Khoonch-Khoon….’’
Follow our WhatsApp channel