In an era when writers are protesting and returning their awards and honours, the concurrent reading of newspapers and contemporary literature resolves the jigsaw puzzle called the modern life and provides a yardstick to measure how the media performed during these trying times in giving voices their due place in democratic polity. Salman Rushdie’s modern fable, Two years eight months and twenty-eight nights, is a layered novel that brings out the constant struggle between the voices that stand for plurality and debate and those that stifle discussion with their sense of closed certainty.
NJAC coverage This newspaper excelled in the way it covered one of the defining apex court judgments of our times by exploring its multiple ramifications and long-term impact. The Supreme Court Bench in a majority of 4:1 rejected the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment as “unconstitutional and void.” It held that the collegium system, as it existed before the NJAC, would again become “operative.” The debates over ‘independence’ versus ‘overreach’, the questions of ‘autonomy’ versus ‘role of executive in other constitutional arms’ and the inherent flaws in the existing collegium system of “judges appointing judges” were explained in detail.
The Hindu’s > Legal Correspondent wrote fourteen articles about the momentous judgment. The articles explained the reasons why the presiding judge, Justice Khehar, did not recuse himself from the case; the salient features of the NJAC as well as the collegium, the details of the dissenting judgment by Justice Chelameswar and the way forward. Gopal Subramanium, the former Solicitor-General of India, wrote an exclusive in-depth for the newspaper’s digital platform where he explained how the judgment restored not only the Supreme Court’s credibility in the eyes of the legal profession but also in terms of its ability to introspect and notify suggestions for a better process of appointment of Judges. The editorial, “ > An assertion of primacy ,” explained how ‘nobody on either side of the debate disagreed that the judiciary should be insulated from political interference’ and raised the question ‘should the judiciary retain its primacy, or should the executive have a say in order that flawed choices do not erode the institution’s credibility?’
A full op-ed page was dedicated to the importance of an independent judiciary. > Sanjay Hegde explored how the four judgments of the majority have reasserted judicial independence, with its concomitant autonomy in appointments, as an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Arghya Sengupta of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy shared his rather bleak opinion that this is a reflection of ‘ > perils of the messiah complex ’ and how the judgment was founded on a mistrust of government, lack of respect for the people and unquestioned faith in the competence of judges. In-house editorial writer, K. Venkataramanan, > raised important questions about the implications of this debate getting trapped in a binary between the judiciary and the executive and wondered whether ‘taking sides with either the judiciary or the government is the only option or is there something more that can be done and who will speak truth to judicial power.’ With the arguments of the former > Chief Justice, R.M. Lodha , and the legal researcher, > Chintan Chandrachud , most pieces of this complex interplay between the judiciary, executive and the legislature fell in place.
While the newspaper outperformed every other news organisation in covering the NJAC verdict, it did not distinguish itself from others when it came to a political story. Every newspaper, including The Hindu , carried a > front-page lead article on the so-called gag order served by the BJP president Amit Shah to some of the hot-headed leaders of his party.
The thrust of the story was that the incendiary remarks made by party leaders on the Dadri lynching had irked the Prime Minister and hence, BJP president Amit Shah summoned four senior leaders — Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, Union Minister Sanjeev Balyan, party MP Sakshi Maharaj and MLA from Uttar Pradesh Sangeet Som — and served a gag order on them. The very next day Sakshi Maharaj and Sangeet Som > rejected media reports that they were reprimanded by party chief Amit Shah. Sakshi Maharaj told The Hindu : “Media should verify and report. I am a five-time MP. The way some media houses have reported about the meeting insinuating me being reprimanded or scolded, is not responsible reportage. I am a sanyasi . He [Mr. Shah] looked at me and I looked at him. That was it.” And, curiously, there was a studied silence from the BJP leadership. It neither endorsed the story of reprimand nor confirmed the version of its garrulous elected members known for provocative statements.
Some readers called to ask which report was right: the ruling party president issuing a gag order or was it a routine meeting as claimed by the legislator and the member of the Parliament? It is a fair question. I am sure the media would not be in an awkward position to address this question if it had not relied on anonymous sources for its lead story. My column, “ > When to grant anonymity ” (July 4, 2015), tried to lay some ground rules for granting anonymity to political sources. Journalists must keep asking themselves a question: if we grant anonymity, do we have a mechanism to sift through all the details to draw the line that divides political spin from genuine information? Otherwise, media can be manipulated in more ways than one.
readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
