‘Judiciary, media must be fair, fearless': Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Delivering the Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture 2025 on the theme 'Judiciary and Media: Shared Principles – Similarities and Dissimilarities'on Monday, Khanna said the judiciary and the press act as vital checks on the executive and on social wrongs, with their legitimacy stemming not from elections but from public confidence.
'Our institutions must operate without fear, bias or prejudice,' he said, quoting Rabindranath Tagore.
He cautioned against the dangers of 'toxic news' — reporting coloured by prejudice, bias or polarisation — and urged the media to maintain respectful language, balanced perspectives, and a healthy 'traffic of ideas' to keep democratic discourse vibrant. Drawing parallels between courtrooms and newsrooms, he noted that both rely on fairness, objectivity, and resistance to prejudice.
'If facts are false or incomplete, the decision will be flawed,' he added.
Tracing the constitutional evolution of free speech, Khanna referred to the First Amendment of 1951 and landmark rulings such as Shreya Singhal, which protect speech up to the point it incites disorder or violence. Restrictions under Article 19(2), he said, must be reasonable, proportionate, and context-sensitive.
On the challenges posed by social media, he pointed to declining cognitive depth, polarised debates, and the marginalisation of minority views due to algorithm-driven content. While social media expands access, it often amplifies outrage rather than fostering dialogue.
The Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Lecture were instituted in 1955 by the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust in memory of the veteran Tribune editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Constitutional validity does not mean desirability, ex-CJI Khanna tells one nation, one election panel
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election Bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna, however, said arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure might be raised about the constitutional amendment Bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the Bill. Justice Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined a few other former CJIs in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill. He said the Bill conferred "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an Assembly poll could not be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Indirect President's rule Justice Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the Bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, was a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Justice Khanna said there was a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or High Courts uphold constitutional validity, it was a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision was not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" Bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the Bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
NDTV
9 hours ago
- NDTV
"Constitutional Validity Doesn't Mean Desirability": Ex-Chief Justice Khanna To Parliament Committee
New Delhi: Former chief justice of India Sanjeev Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Khanna, however, said that arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure may be raised about the constitutional amendment bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the bill. Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday, has joined a few other former chief justices of India in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission in the bill. He said the bill confers "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an assembly poll cannot be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the Election Commission may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the state government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, is a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Khanna said there is a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or high courts uphold constitutional validity, it is a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision is not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Khanna, ex-CJIs D Y Chandrachud, J S Khehar, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
Ex-CJI Sanjeev Khanna to ONOE committee: Constitutional validity does not mean desirability
Former chief justice of India Sanjeev Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency In his written opinion to the committee, Khanna, however, said that arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure may be raised about the constitutional amendment bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P P Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the bill. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday, has joined a few other former chief justices of India in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission in the bill. He said the bill confers "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an assembly poll cannot be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. Live Events "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the Election Commission may result in indirect President's rule , in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the state government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, is a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Khanna said there is a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or high courts uphold constitutional validity, it is a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision is not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Khanna, ex-CJIs D Y Chandrachud, J S Khehar, U U Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as " one nation one election " bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
