Can headlines miss the wood for the trees?

Last week, the Supreme Court of India gave its ruling in two cases: one concerning the inauguration for the Central Vista in New Delhi and the second concerning land acquisition for the Chennai-Salem Expressway in Tamil Nadu. Some readers were uncomfortable with the headlines given by this newspaper in reporting the court’s judgments. The first headline was: “SC nod for Central Vista inauguration” (December 8). The second headline was: “SC clears land acquisition for Chennai-Salem NH” (December 9). In both the cases, the Supreme Court gave conditional clearance. It attached caveats to the rulings. Some readers felt that the headlines failed to capture the court’s reservations. They felt that the headlines were pro-government and read as if the court has fully endorsed the decision taken by the executive regarding the two contentious projects.

What to emphasise in a headline

Referring to the headline on the Centra Vista project, Kabeer Shrivastava, a Delhi-based advocate and a contributor to

The Hindu , felt that the newspaper had not spoken truth to power. He said: “The main thrust of the court’s ruling was its ire with the government, the rush and finally the stay order on any construction or demolition of existing structures.

The Hindu ’s headline instead portrayed a picture that the court granted an imprimatur to the project, which is incorrect. Even the descriptive line below spoke of the PM’s stone laying. Does this not amount to editorialising news?”

If the highest court permits the government to go ahead with the inauguration and if the Prime Minister leads that function, what should the headline of the report be? Should it focus on the Bench’s reservations or on its permission to the government to go ahead with the foundation stone-laying ceremony based on the government’s assurance that it would keep in abeyance the construction or demolition of buildings and the shifting of trees in the Central Vista area for now?

The headline had to reflect the leeway provided to the executive by the court. The fact that Prime Minister went ahead with the ceremony on December 10 vindicated the strapline, which Mr. Shrivastava thought emphasised the wrong part of the report. The newspaper did report the reservations expressed by the Bench. The report read: “A Bench, led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, expressed displeasure with the government for ‘aggressively’ continuing with the construction, demolition and shifting of trees even as questions concerning the legality of the Central Vista project were in court.” A newspaper’s headline should reflect the binding part of a court’s order and not open court observations, however progressive and provocative they may be. The executive goes only by the binding part of the ruling. The advice given by the court, and open court observations, however profound, have little bearing on the decisions of the government.

I agree with Mr. Shrivastava that the newspaper should not become another spokesperson for those in power. In this context, it is important to point out that other arms of Constitution have a checks-and-balances role and they cannot abdicate it in favour of the wishes of the executive. The headlines for news reports must reflect how the die is cast, rather than how the die ought to be cast. The desire for a better outcome can be reflected in the op-ed page headlines.

A significant decision

In the case of the report on the Chennai-Salem Expressway judgment, many environmentalists felt that the headline should have focussed on the court agreeing with the High Court that neither the government nor the National Highways Authority of India had any business altering the mutation entries of specified lands in their favour — that too, even before they had come into possession of these properties. They felt that the apex court’s order upholding the High Court’s decision to restore the earlier entries in the revenue records is a significant one.

In the case of the Central Vista, the newspaper’s opinion in its editorial “Fresh vista” (December 9) spoke of the weakest link in our democracy, healthcare, and how the proposed project may appear to be “grandiose to stricken citizens”. The editorial “The road taken” (December 10) on the Chennai-Salem Expressway explained how the court’s ruling “may have rendered the project a fait accompli .”

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in