Your recent article highlights the tension between press freedom and privacy in reporting matrimonial disputes, but as an ordinary reader, I still have a few doubts. Section 22 of the Family Courts Act bars publication of such proceedings without court permission, yet the prescribed fine appears modest. Is this risk being treated merely as a cost that some publications might be willing to bear for a sensational story? Also, does the legal prohibition apply uniformly across print, television and digital platforms, including online news portals and social media? Finally, if such reporting continues despite the statutory bar, what practical legal safeguards remain to protect an individual’s privacy in matrimonial matters?
— Radhamani, Velachery
The right to privacy in a broader sense stands on a different footing. The Supreme Court has observed that the lives of persons in public office cannot be treated in the same manner as those of purely private individuals.
However, in the present context, there is a clear statutory bar under the law that no one can violate, especially newspapers and the media. Ideally, the parties concerned should approach the court seeking a restraint order against such publication.
Even otherwise, the Press Council of India, as the watchdog body for the print media, can initiate action on its own and issue directions or censure, which could help curb such reporting. But the larger difficulty today is that digital platforms and social media function almost like a wild horse without effective regulatory control.
— --
Is the Supreme Court justified in expressing anger over references to corruption in the judiciary in a Class 8 NCERT textbook? After all, like the executive and the legislature, the judiciary is not entirely immune to graft. A social science curriculum is meant to critically examine institutions, and acknowledging systemic flaws is an integral part of meaningful civic education. Or does the problem lie in the way the sentence was framed in the textbook, appearing to malign the judiciary, especially at a time when NCERT books themselves have been under scrutiny over attempts to rewrite or sanitise history?
— Mahalingam N, Medavakkam
The issue of NCERT publishing a textbook containing a reference to judicial corruption has now gone beyond ordinary debate. It is not just the book, but even the authors of the passage who have reportedly been issued contempt notices, which is unusual.
In law, only an intentional act that scandalises the court or obstructs justice would normally constitute contempt. One can understand if the court had merely observed that such matters need not be placed before tender minds and asked that the passage be removed.
However, the present response suggests the court may be viewing the episode as something more serious, perhaps even suspecting a larger motive. At the same time, critics may argue that the reaction appears disproportionate — somewhat like swatting a bee with an axe.