Why in news?

The Meghalaya High Court held the Editor and Publisher of Shillong Times newspaper guilty of contempt.

What is the case about?

• It relates to the State government's unilateral decision to withdraw certain facilities to retired judges without consulting the court administration.
• After the matter was not resolved on the administrative side for 2 months, the court initiated suo motu proceedings.
• The following court order issued some directions, seeking better facilities for retired judges and their families.
• It called for extending facilities, including protocol services and domestic help, and reimbursing communication bills up to Rs.10,000 a month and a mobile phone worth Rs.80,000.
• Soon, two reports were published in The Shillong Times, criticising the court's directions and calling them “judges judging for themselves”.
• The court thus found the editor and publisher guilty of contempt of court and also imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh each.
• It ruled that in case of non-payment of the penalty in a week, the two will be imprisoned for six months and the paper “banned”.

Why is the order contentious?

• The court's move seems to be a heavy-handed response to comments in the newspaper on the court’s earlier orders.
• Worryingly, there was an explicit threat in the order to ban the newspaper and jail them if they fail to pay the fine.
• Courts are empowered to decide whether a publication scandalised or tended to scandalise the judiciary or interfered with the administration of justice.
• However, there is no legal provision for an outright ban on it.
• On a different note, the court could have ignored the overzealous comments made by activists or journalists, instead of taking it offensive.
• This would have served the cause of preserving the dignity of the higher judiciary.

• However, in the case of Patricia Mukhim, the Editor of Shillong Times, the court has remarked that the newspaper had always attacked individuals and institutions.
• It had published propaganda calling for bandhs and “was always working against judges and the judicial system”.
• Here, it is open to the court to try a case of contempt in an abstract/summary manner.
• However, the use of personalised views of the publication’s past record to decide on contempt of court is questionable.
• The contempt law must not be used, or seen to be used, to suppress dissenting views in the country.