New Delhi, Former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Monday stated that while judicial decisions have actually had an influence on society, news reporting might alter the method individuals believe and act.
< source media ="(max-width:767px)" alt ="News reporting can change the way people think and behave: Ex-CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna" title ="News reporting can change the way people think and behave: Ex-CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna"> < img src ="https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2025/08/06/550x309/Untitled_design_1754465014585_1754465103581.png"alt ="News reporting can change the way people think and behave: Ex-CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna"title ="News reporting can change the way people think and behave: Ex-CJI Justice Sanjiv Khanna"> The ex-CJI made the remark while talking on the subject’ Judiciary and media: Shared concepts, resemblances and significant differences ‘at the ‘Prem Bhatia Journalism Awards and Memorial Lecture’ arranged by the Editors Guild of India.
He likewise described journalism and the judiciary 2 guards of our democratic order, serving as an examine the excesses of the executive and legal.
“Judgments do have an impact on society, but news reporting can change the way we think and behave. We underestimate the impact of news. News coverage is not a benign source of facts, but subconsciously meddles with our lives. We may not realise we are constantly simmering in a soup of news,” Justice Khanna stated.
He stated that in a democratic society, news or media reporting was “healthy” just when the reporting was not contaminated by bias, predisposition, or polarisation.
He stated the media performs the function more straight, while the judiciary does it in a more nuanced way.
“Both when functioning well, speak truth not to provoke, but to preserve and strengthen democracy. After all, a political and social order that works for the people, by the people and of the people necessarily implies robust watchdog institutions,” he included.
He stated that the authenticity of both organizations originated from public trust and faith, which are directed by factor, stability and impartiality, and predisposition, false information, or loss of self-reliance can wear down that trust.
“Rights are the casualties. Hence, both our professions require steadfast commitment to neutrality, fairness and objectivity,” Justice Khanna stated.
He stated 75 years after Independence, the concern was whether the flexibility of speech had actually grown “more capacious, more inclusive and more resilient.”
“Has it widened its arc to accommodate new voices, deeper dissent, and evolving modes of discourse? Has it responded meaningfully to the demands of the present day?” the previous CJI questioned.
He stated it is the value of liberty of speech that exposed this right to the obstacles of political and executive overreach, digital distortion, and financial vulnerability.
“We listen and act differently. You through stories and articles. We, through pleadings, oral arguments and written judgments, but our purpose converges to protect the voice of truth, to be fair and objective. When we do so, we uphold the freedom and liberty,” he stated.
Justice Khanna stated that accountable reporting informs the complete story without irritating enthusiasms or narrowing public dispute, and represents a variety of point of views, without any prejudices.
“Judges reach balanced conclusions by weighing all sides before speaking through reasoned judgments, and journalism should strive for the same discipline and standard. Accuracy and fairness are non-negotiable. Truth, perspective, and critical thinking are the shared ground on which justice and a free press stand together,” he stated.
The jurist stated the media should not take part in declaring, framing, or cutting anything that stands to affect the general public. “…Media has to engage in dialogue and critical thinking.”
The 2 organizations, all the very same, are not without some vital distinctions, he stated.
“Media is an institution for the creation of opinion. There you stand head and shoulders above the judiciary. Judges as constitutional functionaries respond to facts on record, interpret the law and speak through their judgments.
“We do pass by our cases, nor do we discuss them outside the courtrooms. We should not and can not, ought to not editorialise our any constitutional performance. Who picks to do so betrays the oath to judicial life,” Justice Khanna said.
“We need to defend against brand-new avatars of yellow journalism,” he added.
He said fast news has its consequences.
“The competitive capability of the user gets reduced. Believing in depth needs effort and energy. Social network is appealing and numerous or the majority of the time, it does not need competitive capability and time,” he said.
Justice Khanna also claimed today’s youths have lost the sustained ability to think about complex topics.
“Cognitive thinking is decreasing. Its repercussions are that the very best concepts do not increase to the top. Concepts that bring a bulk assistance get up quotes based upon resemblance, opposition, psychological silence and so on,” he said.
“Take a look at the television disputes today. No subject is really safe. We witness flame wars every night. Acrimonious exchanges online do not lead to bridges being constructed,” he added.
He said that the judiciary and the press were two different and distinct organs, but their health was interdependent.
“The Constitution offers every one people a different function. Neither should be taken over,” the previous CJI stated.
This short article was produced from an automated news firm feed without adjustments to text.