Blanket gag order will have chilling effect on press freedom: Bombay HC on Shilpa Shetty plea
Mumbai, Jul 30: The Bombay High Court on Friday noted that passing a blanket gag order on the media against reporting anything against Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty, wife of arrested businessman Raj Kundra, shall have a chilling effect on the freedom of press and said there is a judicial limit on what can be construed as good or bad journalism.
Justice Gautam Patel, however, directed that three videos uploaded on YouTube channels of three private persons be deleted and not uploaded again as they were malicious and with not even a slightest attempt to investigate into the truth of the matter .
The court noted that the freedom of press has to be balanced with the right to privacy of an individual.
The three videos made comments on Shetty's moral standing and went on to question the quality of her parenting following the arrest of her husband Raj Kundra in a case related to alleged production and streaming of pornographic content on apps.
The court was hearing a suit filed by Shetty against alleged defamatory articles published against her and family after the arrest of her husband on July 19. Kundra (45) is currently in jail under judicial custody.
Shetty, in an interim application, had sought for media to be restrained from publishing any incorrect, false, malicious and defamatory content.
Justice Patel, however, noted that the plaintiff's prayer seeking media to be restrained will have a chilling effect on the freedom of press .
There is a judicial limit on what is good or bad journalism as this comes very close to freedom of press, the court said.
The court noted that the articles referred to by Shetty in her suit do not seem to be defamatory.
It cannot be like if you (media) are not going to write or say anything nice about me (Shetty) then do not say anything at all. How can this be? Justice Patel said.
The court noted that most of the articles referred to in the suit, including one that claimed that "Shetty cried and fought with her husband Kundra" when he was brought to their house by the police for joint interrogation was based on what police sources said.
Reportage of something based on what police sources have said is not defamatory. If this had happened in the four walls of your house with no one around then the issue is different. But this has happened in the presence of outsiders. How is this defamation? Justice Patel said.
The court added that at the most this shows that the plaintiff (Shetty) is human and there is nothing wrong with it.
You chose a life in the public eye then all this will come as part of the territory. Your life is under a microscope, Justice Patel said.
Shetty's counsel Birendra Saraf also took objection to an article published on a website, 'Peeping Moon', in which it was claimed that Shetty "destroyed evidence" in the case in which her husband has been arrested.
Justice Patel, however, said he was not inclined to direct for this particular article to be taken down as the material in it was prima facie drawn from an understanding of what the police said or indicated. No part of this order shall be construed as a gag on the media, Justice Patel observed.
The actor's application also sought damages of Rs 25 crore, stating that the respondents (several media publications and social media sites like Google, Facebook and YouTube) are causing irreparable loss and damage to her reputation.
In her plea, Shetty sought directions against social media platforms like Google, YouTube and Facebook to remove all defamatory content related to her and family.
To this, Justice Patel said, Your prayer seeking for social media platforms like Google, YouTube and Facebook to exercise control over editorial content is dangerous. The HC directed all defendants in the suit to file their affidavits and posted the matter for further hearing on September 20.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
