When The Indian Express filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India on April 21, 2025, it wasn’t just fighting for its reputation—it was pushing back against a judicial order that many in journalism fear could set a dangerous precedent. The court had demanded a fresh, front-page apology in bold letters over a reporting error, calling the original apology "eyewash." Now, the apex court has paused that order, siding with the newspaper’s argument that such demands risk chilling press freedom.
The Trigger: A Misreported Hearing
The dispute began on August 13, 2024, when a Gujarat High Court bench—led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi—issued notices to The Indian Express, Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (publisher of The Times of India), and Divy Bhaskar. The trigger? Coverage of oral remarks made during a hearing on amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act. The court felt the reports wrongly suggested its comments were final rulings, not interim observations. That’s a subtle but critical distinction in legal journalism.
The newspapers quickly issued apologies. But the High Court wasn’t satisfied. In its September 2, 2024 order, it called the apologies "vague," "inadequate," and lacking in "remorse." The court demanded a new apology—published in bold, uppercase letters on the front page—explicitly stating what was misreported and how. For The Indian Express, this wasn’t just about correction. It was about coercion.
The Supreme Court Steps In
On April 21, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih heard The Indian Express’s petition. The court didn’t just grant leave—it tagged the case with the already pending petition from Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., which had raised identical concerns. Crucially, the court extended the stay it had previously granted to The Times of India on September 4, 2024, meaning neither paper must publish the front-page apology… yet.
"The judiciary has the right to ensure accurate reporting," said one senior advocate familiar with the case, speaking anonymously. "But when it starts dictating font size and placement, it crosses into editorial territory. That’s where the Constitution kicks in." The Supreme Court also clarified that proceedings on the education act amendments could continue unaffected—separating the substance of the case from the media’s procedural dispute. This matters. It signals the apex court isn’t interfering with judicial authority, just its method of enforcing accountability.
Why This Isn’t Just About Two Apologies
This case isn’t about whether The Indian Express got the facts wrong. It’s about who gets to decide how a correction is framed. The Gujarat High Court’s order didn’t ask for a retraction. It demanded a performance—a public ritual of contrition, with exacting formatting rules. That’s unprecedented.
Media lawyers point to a 2019 Delhi High Court case involving NDTV, where the court criticized reporting but stopped short of mandating apology placement. The difference? That court treated the apology as a remedial act. The Gujarat order treated it as a punitive spectacle.
"If the High Court can demand bold front-page apologies for one error," noted legal analyst Meena Joshi, "what’s to stop it from requiring the same for every misstatement in a court report? Soon, editors will be drafting apologies in advance, not because they’re wrong—but because they’re scared to be wrong." The chilling effect isn’t theoretical. Several regional newspapers in Gujarat reportedly scaled back court coverage after the notices. One editor told Newslaundry: "We now only report the final order. No context. No nuance. Just the verdict."
What’s Next? A Landmark Ruling Looms
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case signals deep concern. The bench didn’t just grant leave—it actively consolidated the matter with The Times of India’s petition, suggesting it sees this as a systemic issue. The next hearing is expected in the next 60 to 90 days.
Legal experts believe the court may issue guidelines on how courts should handle media errors—not through punitive formatting orders, but through standardized protocols: corrections in the same section, clear attribution, and perhaps even a judicial notice system for factual disputes.
Meanwhile, the stay remains in place. The Indian Express and Bennett Coleman are not required to publish the front-page apology. The Gujarat High Court’s order is suspended. But the underlying question—how far can courts go to control media speech?—remains unanswered.
Background: The Broader Battle Over Court Reporting
India has long walked a tightrope between judicial dignity and press freedom. In 2018, the Supreme Court itself warned that "courts cannot become arbiters of journalistic style." But lower courts, particularly in states like Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, have increasingly used contempt powers to punish media for perceived inaccuracies.
Between January 2020 and March 2024, at least 17 media outlets across India received notices from various high courts for misreporting. Only three cases led to formal contempt proceedings. The rest? Apology demands, often with subjective criteria. That’s the real issue: inconsistent, opaque standards.
What’s striking is that none of these cases involved deliberate falsehoods. All were about misinterpretation of oral remarks—something even seasoned legal journalists struggle with. The court’s response, however, was uniform: public penance.
"The media is not a court," said veteran journalist Arjun Mehta. "We report what we hear. We don’t transcribe. We interpret. And when we err, we correct. But we don’t kneel on the front page for a misheard phrase."
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Gujarat High Court reject the initial apologies?
The court found the apologies "vague and inadequate," lacking specific acknowledgment of what was misreported. It criticized them as "eyewash" because they didn’t clearly state the nature of the error or express sufficient remorse. The court wanted explicit language identifying the misrepresentation of its oral observations as final rulings.
What’s the legal significance of the Supreme Court’s stay on the apology order?
The stay signals the Supreme Court views the Gujarat High Court’s demand for front-page, bold-letter apologies as potentially overreaching. It suggests that while courts can correct media errors, dictating the format and prominence of corrections may infringe on press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
How does this case compare to past media-judiciary clashes in India?
Unlike past cases where courts imposed fines or contempt charges for deliberate falsehoods, this dispute centers on a minor reporting error—misinterpreting oral remarks. The unprecedented demand for a front-page apology in bold letters makes this unique. Previous rulings, like the 2018 Delhi HC case, emphasized correction over punishment.
Will this ruling affect how newspapers report on court proceedings?
If the Supreme Court rules against the Gujarat High Court’s approach, it could lead to clearer, standardized protocols for media corrections—perhaps requiring corrections in the same section or via judicial notices. If it upholds the order, many outlets may retreat from detailed court reporting, fearing punitive formatting demands.
Who are the key parties involved in this legal battle?
The petitioners are The Indian Express and Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (publisher of The Times of India). The respondent is the Gujarat High Court, specifically its Registrar. The dispute stems from a hearing on amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act.
What’s the timeline for a final decision?
The Supreme Court has not set a firm date yet, but legal observers expect a hearing within 60 to 90 days. Given the constitutional stakes, the court is likely to issue a detailed judgment, possibly setting national guidelines on how courts should handle media errors without violating press freedom.