'We are completely immune': Supreme Court flags 'half-baked running commentary' on pending cases

New Delhi: Observing that half-baked truth and ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice cases affects public perception, the Supreme Court on Friday asserted that it is "completely immune" from reporting of cases for the sake of publicity or narrative building.

The observations were made when the top court was hearing a case concerning the repatriation of certain individuals deported to Bangladesh on the alleged ground that due process was not followed.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that Sunali Khatun, a pregnant woman, and her eight-year old son have come back to India and presently, she is getting medical attention at her father’s residence in Birbhum in West Bengal.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi fixed January 6 to hear the Centre’s appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgment that directed the repatriation of certain individuals deported to Bangladesh on the alleged ground that the due process was not followed.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, expressed strong disapproval of a news report published in an English newspaper regarding the issue.

Terming the reportage as "tabloid-like," the top law officer said, “I do not want to escalate …but attempts are made to build a particular kind of narratives” in a bid to influence the outcome.

The law officer said he was sure that the bench is not influenced by any such reports, but it does cast doubt about the intention to build a particular kind of narrative.

"My faith was shaken,” Mehta said.

"We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo-publicity stunts. Narratives should not affect the lives of individuals," Justice Bagchi said.

Advising the law officer to “just ignore them”, the CJI, however, said, “Ideally, ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice matters should not be made.”

"The problem is half-baked distorted facts and ill-informed facts are being reported," he said.

"Reporting that a matter is coming up (for hearing) is fine. But if you thrust your opinion, then that is an issue. The issue is with half-baked truth and ill-informed opinion which affects public perception," the CJI added.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, referred to the media's role in recent times in countries like the UK and the US, and said immigration issues are part of a "global discourse" and comments and public discourses are held on social media and other platforms.

"People write opinions in the US and England on immigration. As long as you don't attribute motive, it is not sacrilege," Sibal said.

At the outset, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde brought to the court’s attention the plight of another deportee, Sweety Bibi, who remains stuck with her husband and two children.

Hegde offered to provide documents proving their Indian citizenship. He urged the solicitor general to take up the other case on humanitarian grounds, saying, “that side of the border is very difficult for Indians."

The law officer assured Hegde that he will look into the issue and the verification may take sometime.

The court said once documents are verified, modalities for their return could be considered in a time-bound manner.

The case involves families who had been working as daily wagers in Delhi’s Rohini area for two decades.

They were detained by police on June 18 on suspicion of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and deported on June 27.

The Calcutta High Court, in its impugned order, had observed that the deportation violated the Union Home Ministry’s own protocols, which require an inquiry by the state government before deportation.

The high court had noted that the "overenthusiasm" in deporting the detainees disturbed the "judicial climate."

Sibal reiterated this point during the hearing and said, "The Union does no inquiry for 30 days before deporting them."