In a recent order, Justice Shekhar B Saraf of the Calcutta High Court made certain pertinent observations regarding the significance of the freedom of the media in a democracy, reiterating that,.“…the media in today’s day and age is one of the pillars of the citadel which is democracy.”.The Court was hearing petitions filed on behalf of ABP Private Limited, which owns publications such as the Anandbazar Patrika and the Telegraph. One of the petitions were made to restrain certain groups from continuing to conduct unlawful dharnas in front of its registered offices..The petitioner-company had moved the Court through its Advocate Ranadeep Sinha, against the apparent inaction of the police in restraining such disruptive activities..The police’s refusal to act against the dharnas was contended to be in contravention of orders passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in the matter earlier. By its order, the Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the police to strictly ensure.“…that no breach of peace takes place in the disputed locale…. and to further see that no illegal acts are caused….so as to disturb the public tranquility or to form any riot or affray.”.However, the High Court was informed that the Magistrate’s order was disregarded and that the miscreants were indulging in destruction of the property. It was also argued that ingress and egress of employees into the office was being prevented by such persons. As a result, ABP argued, an atmosphere of fear had been created..Taking a serious view of such disruption, the High Court held,.“…such gathering of people in front of the registered office of the petitioner company is not proper and needs to be checked by the respondent authorities..The petitioner company being a media company should not be threatened by hooligans and protection from such hooligans is required to be given to the petitioner company forthwith by the police authorities.”.The Court went on to observe,.“…the media in today’s day and age is one of the pillars of the citadel which is democracy. A media organisation has to be allowed to work in an atmosphere of freedom. .Any attempt to scuttle and restrain the media, in any manner whatsoever, would be anathema to the concept of a free and independent press. .The fact that movement of the press is being restrained and a threat perception exists is egregious and reprehensible and the same needs to be set right immediately.”.Therefore, the Court ordered the concerned police officers to take the requisite steps to ensure that no further gathering of people takes place in front of the office of the petitioner company..In addition to increasing picket fences and the number of police personnel stationed outside the ABP’s offices, the Court also directed the police to submit a detailed report in the matter by May 7..Read Order:
In a recent order, Justice Shekhar B Saraf of the Calcutta High Court made certain pertinent observations regarding the significance of the freedom of the media in a democracy, reiterating that,.“…the media in today’s day and age is one of the pillars of the citadel which is democracy.”.The Court was hearing petitions filed on behalf of ABP Private Limited, which owns publications such as the Anandbazar Patrika and the Telegraph. One of the petitions were made to restrain certain groups from continuing to conduct unlawful dharnas in front of its registered offices..The petitioner-company had moved the Court through its Advocate Ranadeep Sinha, against the apparent inaction of the police in restraining such disruptive activities..The police’s refusal to act against the dharnas was contended to be in contravention of orders passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in the matter earlier. By its order, the Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the police to strictly ensure.“…that no breach of peace takes place in the disputed locale…. and to further see that no illegal acts are caused….so as to disturb the public tranquility or to form any riot or affray.”.However, the High Court was informed that the Magistrate’s order was disregarded and that the miscreants were indulging in destruction of the property. It was also argued that ingress and egress of employees into the office was being prevented by such persons. As a result, ABP argued, an atmosphere of fear had been created..Taking a serious view of such disruption, the High Court held,.“…such gathering of people in front of the registered office of the petitioner company is not proper and needs to be checked by the respondent authorities..The petitioner company being a media company should not be threatened by hooligans and protection from such hooligans is required to be given to the petitioner company forthwith by the police authorities.”.The Court went on to observe,.“…the media in today’s day and age is one of the pillars of the citadel which is democracy. A media organisation has to be allowed to work in an atmosphere of freedom. .Any attempt to scuttle and restrain the media, in any manner whatsoever, would be anathema to the concept of a free and independent press. .The fact that movement of the press is being restrained and a threat perception exists is egregious and reprehensible and the same needs to be set right immediately.”.Therefore, the Court ordered the concerned police officers to take the requisite steps to ensure that no further gathering of people takes place in front of the office of the petitioner company..In addition to increasing picket fences and the number of police personnel stationed outside the ABP’s offices, the Court also directed the police to submit a detailed report in the matter by May 7..Read Order: