Speaking on the occasion of national press day on November 16, prime minister Manmohan Singh said censorship was no answer to irresponsible journalism and favoured self-regulation by the media. “It is true that sometimes irresponsible journalism can have serious consequences for social harmony and public order, which the public authorities have an obligation to maintain, but censorship is no answer,” Singh said.

Information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari echoed the prime minister in emphasising the need for media self-regulation, making it clear that the government had no intention of acting as a “big brother” or policing the media.

But press council of India chief Justice Markandey Katju begged to differ.

“Freedom of press is not an absolute right. The absolute right is the improvement of standard of living of the masses. If freedom of press helps the improvement of standard of living of masses, then it’s a good thing. But if freedom of press lowers the standard of living of people, makes people poorer, then we must crush freedom of press,” Katju said.

“Sachin Tendulkar has scored his hundredth century, now rivers of milk and honey would flow in the country. Cricket is the opium of the masses. People are drugged with cricket. The Roman emperors used to say that if you cannot give people bread, give them circuses,” Katju said at the function held to mark national press day, which commemorates the establishment of the press council on November 16, 1956.

A day later, on November 17, Justice Katju wrote an article in The Indian Express (read here) to clarify on his statement (or more accurately, to elaborate, since Katju has never denied what he said in the past; he just said it again in his articles more emphatically and with facts). In the article, Katju demanded TV media to be brought under regulation (not control, he argued) of the press council. He even suggested rechristening it as media council, which should be is “an independent statutory authority”, which press council already is, and “must have penal powers”.

He dismissed the existing news broadcasting standards authority (headed by former chief justice of India JS Verma), which professes self-regulation because it “is a non-statutory body with no penal powers and is therefore toothless”. “Those who accuse me of trying to crush media freedom can see my track record. I have fought for media freedom every time it was threatened…” he wrote, giving a list of his oppositions to various instances of attack on the freedom of press. He did not make a mention, though, of his own direct attacks on the press in the form of his idiosyncratic ideas hard-sold as suggestions. Why actor Dev Anand’s demise on page 1, why Sachin Tendulkar all over newspapers, why so much Bollywood, why astrologers in newspapers and on TVs? The list is long and given the former judge’s propensity of going after everything with his gavel, difficult to reproduce here in its magnificent entirety.

November 18 being Sunday, justice Katju did not write/speak on anything. Holidays are for the family and contemplation, you know. On Monday, November 19, when newspapers flashed page one pictures of a sea of mourners attending Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s funeral in Mumbai, justice Katju was back, this time in The Hindu, and again on that obnoxious page 13, with an article titled ‘Why I can’t pay tribute to Thackeray’ (read here). The erudite former judge began with a Tamil couplet by Subramania Bharathi and moved on to two quick-fire slokas from Shanti Parv, Mahabharat, before he could begin his piece. He said he knows the Latin maxim De mortuis nil nisi bonum (of the dead speak only good), but he cannot follow it since he regards “the interest of my country above observance of civil proprieties”.

He went on to question Thackeray’s legacy, his bhumiputra theory which states that Maharashtra essentially belongs to Maharashtrians while all others living there are outsiders, and his strong argument for a united India. Justice Katju’s arguments have not even an iota of novelty other than his defence for not paying tribute to Thackeray: “…I regard the interest of my country above observance of civil proprieties.”

Thank goodness, Thackeray in his lifetime never had to appear in a court presided over by Katju: the former judge would have taken his gown off and launched himself like a missile in the trajectory of the witness box!

The question is: should a man like Katju, who will forget “observance of civil proprieties” in the name of “interest of my country”, hold the position of the press council chief, let alone his demand/suggestion/insinuation of bringing TV media under the ambit of press council? Imagine if Kasab ever had to be in his court, he would have been lynched by a gavel!

And if justice Katju argues that the courtroom conducts are any different from the life outside, he is wrong. The Latin maxim De mortuis nil nisi bonum is observed everywhere. Thackeray’s anti-migrants politics has been criticised in the media a million times, but no sane journalist/political rival/even victim of Thackeray’s hate politics would do it on the day after his funeral.