Misleading Media Headlines, the Judge–Magistrate Distinction, and the Menace of Provocation

Media Irresponsibility and Public Confusion: The recent tragedy of Advocate Vinayak Chandel’s suicide has unsettled the state. Yet, instead of presenting facts with sensitivity, some prominent newspapers and channels rushed to publish headlines such as “Case filed against Judge.” Such reporting is not just misleading — it is reckless and condemnable. It blurs a fundamental truth: the clear distinction between a Judge and a Magistrate. When the media erases this line, it misguides citizens and damages the dignity of the judiciary itself.

Judges and Judicial Magistrates – Understanding the Divide

In India’s judicial framework, Judges and Judicial Magistrates have different roles. District Judges preside over civil disputes, while Sessions Judges handle major criminal trials. Their appointments come directly through the High Court, and their work involves weighty and complex matters. By contrast, Judicial Magistrates — whether First Class, Second Class, Chief, or Sub-Divisional — preside over smaller criminal cases, bail hearings, remand orders, and warrants. They function under the supervision of the District and Sessions Judge. There are also Executive Magistrates — District Magistrates, Revenue Commissioners, Police Commissioners — who are appointed by the State Government. As per C.P. & Berar Act, 1950, Section 7(a), the District Magistrate, acting as an Executive Magistrate, holds responsibility for preventive measures for maintaining law and order. In this capacity, the Police Commissioner functions as a Competent Authority. The law goes further. Section 161(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act specifies that if an officer commits a wrongful act “under colour of duty,” he is open to prosecution. If a Judicial Magistrate authorises custody without recording reasons, he becomes directly answerable to the High Court, and may even face contempt of court. Police custody places the accused under police watch. Judicial custody places him under the court’s supervision. And interrogation of an accused can take place only with the express permission of the trial court.

The Growing Menace of Provocation

Beyond misleading headlines, society now faces a more corrosive danger — the rise of provocative conduct. Provocation (दुष्प्रेरण) is not mere harassment. It is incitement. It is pushing someone in the wrong direction. It is nudging an individual closer to crime. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) codifies this clearly: Section 45 defines abetment. Section 46 makes abetment punishable even if the crime itself is never carried out. Section 50 holds the abettor guilty even if the person provoked acted with a different intention. The message is unambiguous: indecent, insulting, arrogant, or provocative speech — whether in person or through mobile and internet platforms — is not just indecency. It is a crime. Today, shallow politics, public humiliation of respected citizens, and the flood of provocative language on social media are inflicting enormous psychological stress on advocates, police officers, magistrates, and ordinary people alike. The Right to Live with Dignity (Article 21 / BNS) is being repeatedly violated.

A Moment of Condolence

We express our condolences on the passing of Advocate Vinayak Chandel. Our heartfelt tribute to his memory. This is not only a personal loss but a wake-up call for society to confront and curb the escalating culture of provocation.

Author’s Note

Issued in Public Interest by: Rajesh D. Jalgaonkar - Regulatory Law Practitioner Rajesh D. Jalgaonkar is a practitioner of cooperative, civic, and statutory law. His expertise spans the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, redevelopment and property statutes, municipal corporation laws, the Maharashtra Police Act, as well as the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Through years of examining petitions, analysing government circulars, and compiling statutory material, he has developed a framework for practical legal guidance. His work — rooted in constitutional rights, statutory compliance, and justice — provides clarity to institutional office-bearers as well as ordinary citizens.