Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday(August 1) said that the minds and souls of journalists and judges must always remain free, and that they must function without fear, bias or prejudice. He said the nation's head would be held high only when its institutions are fair and fearless.

“Our institutions do not need applause; we need credibility and faith. That comes not by being always right but by being principled. I would like to end by borrow and tweak a few words of Rabindranath Tagore – The minds and souls of journalists and judges must always remain free. We must operate without fear, bias, or prejudice. For it is when our institutions are fair and fearless will our nation's head be held high”, Justice Khanna said.

Delivering a lecture on “Judiciary and Media: Shared Principles – Similarities and Dissimilarities” at the Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India, Justice Khanna spoke on the shared role of the press and judiciary as watchdogs of democracy, their differences, and the challenges posed by misinformation and changing media patterns.

Justice Khanna discussed Supreme Court rulings from Romesh Thapar to Shreya Singhal, emphasising that speech must be protected unless it incites an offence, threatens public order or other legitimate interests under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. He said the role of constitutional adjudication was to protect the autonomy and dignity of speakers, even if their words offend or disturb.

“The responsibility of the constitutional adjudication lies not in endorsing a majoritarian morality but in upholding the dignity and autonomy of the speaker even when the words may offend, provoke or disturb. Freedom of speech is an autonomy and dignified right grounded on individuals capacity to think choose and speak freely. Its protection is not only essential for personal fulfilment but also for collective search for truth in a democratic society”, Justice Khanna said.

He said the press and the judiciary do not often share a platform but they have the same calling. Both act as watchdogs for the common citizen. Both seek truth, he said, though they follow different paths. Both, he said, must speak truth to power to preserve democracy.

Seventy-five years after independence, he said, the question is not whether freedom of thought and expression exists, but whether that freedom has become more inclusive and more resilient.

He described the right to freedom of speech and expression as being as important as the right to life, as it enables the exercise of all other rights. This freedom, he said, faces threats from political and executive overreach, digital distortion, economic vulnerability, and public fatigue. Public trust in both institutions, he said, depends on their integrity, impartiality, and reasoned functioning.

Warning against bias, he said prejudice can enter institutions subtly, whether through the projection of news or through judicial reasoning.

“We must erect guard rails against prejudice creeping into our institutions and structures. Bias can creep in quietly. It can be just by the projection of news and the opinion in the judgement. Discipline lies in recognising and resisting bias and prejudices”, he said.

Justice Khanna said that plurality of viewpoints, whether in the form of dissenting judgments or diverse editorial positions, is essential for institutions tasked with protecting liberty. Without it, he cautioned, rationality could not be distinguished from propaganda.

“This plurality is the foundation to the character of our institution. No institution tasked with protecting Liberty can afford to be a single unitary voice. Otherwise nothing will separate rationality from propaganda. Propaganda has a tendency to rupture the society. Judgements have an impact on the society but news reports can change the way people think and behave. News coverage is not a benign source of facts but subconsciously meddles with our life”, he emphasised.

On the role of the media, Justice Khanna said reporting should be accurate, fair, and inclusive of different perspectives. It should not be used to push a narrow viewpoint or set an agenda, and must avoid being influenced by prejudice, bias, or polarisation. He drew a distinction between facts and opinion, saying false or incomplete facts can lead to flawed outcomes both in court and in public debate.

He added, “In democratic society, news or media reporting is healthy only when the reporting is not polluted by prejudice bias or polarization. Healthy democracy needs news media which ensures effective traffic of ideas among participants. Overtime constant toxic exposure can narrow the mind and create echo chambers where the same views are repeated and reinforced. Minds become narrower. When toxicity prevails, democracy loses its fidelity and ability to govern with legitimacy.”

He noted that while media can freely choose issues and shape narratives, judges respond to cases brought before them and speak only through judgments. Judges, he said, should not editorialise, while the media must remain free but fair.

Justice Khanna also reflected on changes brought by social media, noting its ability to democratise access to news. He said social media today has altered the landscape and legacy media has lost eyeballs and users. Social media platforms need less investment and allow easy uploads across the country. That, he said, democratises media but creates problems.

He pointed out that algorithms show users news based on past interests. Unlike print, which lets readers assimilate and reason, social media prizes speed and short points, he said. He said that youngster find it harder to think through complex topics and cognitive reasoning declines.

Justice Khanna pointed out that in social media the best ideas do not always rise to the top. Upvotes reward familiarity, position and emotion. He said controversial topics often spark heated exchanges.

“Controversial topics often result in exchange of heated comments. Look at the TV debates today. No topic is truly safe. We witness flame wars every evening. Acrimonious exchange or lying do not result in bridges being built. Instead they tend to intensify the anger and vitriol and the increased abusive and intolerant position among the participants as well as the viewers”, he said.

He said that such patterns can lead to the marginalisation of minority viewpoints and a “spiral of silence.

Concluding, he said that the judiciary and media must each stay within their constitutional roles.

“Judiciary and the press are two different and distinct organs but our health is interdependent. The Constitution gives each one of us a separate role. Neither must usurp the other. The judges must remain in the four corners of their brief. The media must remain free but fair”, he emphasised.