The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order directing Times Now to deposit Rs. 20 crore and a bank guarantee of Rs. 80 crore as a pre-condition to hear its appeal. The
in my opinion commentators are forgetting that Arnab Goswami lied about his surgery and anchored on the date of appointment with Justice Sawant. So if not for defamation case for lying to Justice Sawant,Arnab must be fined 100cr.
Arnab Goswami recently said 'after many days Renuka Choudhari on Times now channel', his tone was so sarcastic that as a common man I felt insulting
He calls every MP ,Minister by name,cut short the respondent's talk,after closing the talker's camera he makes fun of them,he make insulting remarks
Hon'ble S.C. & H.C. court make orders just like 'dictatorship' in view of defamation case of retd. justice. Retd. Justice Balakrishnan also involved in the case of 'corruption' but judiciary does not feel any amounts of defamation of Judiciary. What Abuse of Power of Hon'ble Judiciary.
the bombay highcourt order is the correct and the Honble supreme court has also rightly passed order.it must be the lesson to the t v channel.to spoil the reputation of the supreme court judge for tv channel news can note be tolerated for a daa.
For piquant situation like that of TIMES NOW and judiciary, the famous Roman stoic philosopher, moralist, and dramatist---Lucius Annaeus Seneca [c. A.D. 5-65], in his article â€œMediaâ€ had written : â€œHe who decides a case with the other side unheard, Though he decides justly, is himself unjust.â€ (â€œQui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera, Aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit.â€). Going further, An English judge of 18th century, William Murray [1705-1793], in his article â€œAdviseâ€ (to judges) had stated â€œGive your decisions, never your reasons ; your decisions may be right, your reasons are sure to be wrong.â€
Several considerations were avoided in coming to this decision? Why 100 crores? Where has the effect of the alleged defamation been noticed? Where has it been settled that a non-malicious, unintentional action falls under the ambit of defamation?Freedom of Press naturally doesn't mean the allowance of defamatory material, but it also doesn't mean such heavy sanctions. The ECtHR is pretty settled on the punishment to lash out to defamatory actions and the principle of law is to dish out in proportion to the consquences of the action(MGN Case and Handyside Case). There has been no consequences of the said airing of the photograph and the amount is monsterous in proportion.As to the shutting down of the channel mentioned above by Ramana Murty, we need to understand the role of the press as a public watchdog. Any such restrains would only come back to haunt those who try to implement these. Prior Restrains are the worst form of abridgment of rights.
Tweets by @barandbench
Follow us on
Follow us on