Fundamental Right To Privacy Available Against Private Citizens And Media: Kerala HC Criticizes Media Reporting On Pending Cases
While setting aside the Judgment of the Single Judge holding that Priya Varghese, the wife of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's private secretary, did not have the relevant experience for the post of Malayalam Associate Professor, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has criticized the media for discussions on matters pending before the Court.
The Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Niyas held in the context of media reporting of court proceedings that the new fundamental right to privacy is also available against private citizens. "On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, we are of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of one’s reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media", the Court held.
Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan appeared for Priya Varghese while Senior Advocate George Poonthottam appeared for the writ petitioner, Senior Advocate P. Ravindran appeared for the Registrar of the University, Senior Advocate Gopakumaran Nair appeared for the Chancellor and Advocates T.B.Hood and S.Krishnamoorthy appeared for the State and the UGC respectively.
The High Court termed the media reporting and social media posts on pending matters a "distraction". The Bench said that "..frighteningly frequent are those occasions when the impugned decision in academic matters attracts media attention for some reason or the other, and the court has then to deal with the added distraction brought about through incessant newspaper/channel discussions and overwhelming social media posts".
The Court said in the order that Courts have time and again exhorted the print and electronic media to exercise restraint by deferring discussions on matters pending before the court so that the rule of law can be better served "by avoiding an obstruction of the course of justice".
The High Court said that the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is caused to a litigant’s dignity and reputation through unjustified comments and remarks, often based on the oral remarks made by a judge during the adjudication proceedings, notwithstanding that the litigant ultimately succeeds in those proceedings. The Court noted CJI Chandrachud's recent remark that not everything that is said by a judge during the course of interaction with counsel in court can be taken as revealing the judge’s views on the merits of the cause that is being adjudicated.
"We trust, therefore, that the media will take note of these observations and adopt a code of responsible journalistic conduct that will inform news reporting in the days to come", said the Court, concluding its discussion on media and social media, that came as a 'post script' to its Judgment.
By its Judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal of Priya Varghese and set aside the single judge's decision of November 17, 2022 and held that the time spent by Priya on research under the Faculty Development Programme of the Kannur University is entitled to be reckoned towards the research experience stipulated for the post. The court held that merely on account of having pursued a research degree simultaneous with her teaching assignment, the research period will not be excluded from being counted as experience.
The bench said that the prohibition under the UGC Regulations against the inclusion of the time taken for acquiring a PhD degree in the computation of teaching/research experience only applied to 'candidates' those who were not working as a teacher in any institution at the time of applying for the post in question.
Cause Title: Priya Varghese v. Dr. Joseph Skariah & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023:KER:34337]
Click here to read/download Judgment
