​How did mainstream English media misplaced modifier of the Calcutta HC order termed “minority appeasement” and politicise the report regarding curbs on Durga Idol by West Bengal govt

It was a order about immersion of Durga Idol regarding a PIL of October 6, 2016 by a single-member bench of honourable Justice Dipankar Dutta of High Court of Calcutta.

What was Justice Dutt phrased:

“There has been a clear endeavour on the part of the State government to pamper and appease the minority section of the public at the cost of majority section without there being any plausible justification.”

Note this phrase is “to pamper and appease the minority section of the public” not the minority religious sections of the public or community.

It was two separate​ hearing:

Two separate judgements by the High Court on Thursday, October 6, 2016 set aside the Kolkata police directive to complete the immersion by 4 p.m. on October 11, the day before Muharram.

The Hindu headlined “HC slams West Bengal for curbs on immersion”  and reported:

While hearing a public interest litigation petition, a division bench of Chief Justice Girish Gupta and Justice Arindam Singha extended the deadline till 6 p.m. on Dasami.”

And the other was “On the same day, while hearing a PIL plea by the Dhar family of Burrabazar, Justice Dipankar Datta allowed immersion of household idols till 8.30 pm on October 11.”

But in the report of the Indian Express  “two separate judgement” term was missing instead reported “Dutt allowed three petitioners representing two households and an appartment complex” and headlined,“Culcutta HC lifts Puja curbs, slams Bengal “bid to appease minority.”

It was reported,

The Kolkata police had also directed that there would be no immersion the next day because of Muharram. Immersion resumed on October 13, Justice Dutt said there was no decision prohibiting immersion beyond 4 p.m. had added, “illegal deprivation on encroachment thereof by the administration deserves to be interdirected for protecting their right.”

This report was written by Aniruddha Ghoshal. In his report the article also quoted, “appease the minority section of public”

The New Indian Express headlined,

Calcutta HC rejects bar on Durga Puja immersion; slams state for “minority appeasement​.” But in detailed report quoted Justice Dutt as same as I quoted here initially​ of this article.

Hindustan Times was headlined,

Culcutta HC pulls up state for puja restrictions meant to ‘appease’ minorities. But was mentioned there “according to a report by the Indian Expres” which I am linked earlier.

But added in last line of their report “The state government has so far not appealed the high court’s ruling. ”
In the news analysis of Scroll.in Shoaib Daniyal headlined,

Why did the High Court accuse the Mamata government of appeasing minorities during Durga Puja?

He also mentioned mererly about the “politicised court order” in the points and phrased:

This is welcome move. However, given the sensetive nature of the issue, the political and theological comments by the court in what is simply a matter of law seem rather unneeded and represent an unnecessary politicisation of the judiciary function.

Now I share some headlines from right-wing websites.

Postcard news headlined, “Calcutta High Court slams Mamata Government for Restricting Durga Pooja to Appease “Minorities”!

Rightactions headlined, “Calcutta HC slams Mamata badly, says you are appeasing muslims and will lead to intelorence”

Both artilcles were quoted from that Indian Express article.

Without scroll, in an article by-line Charu Kartikeya on Catchnews of Rajasthan Patrika was headlined, “Calcutta HC Puja Order: your honour, what exactly is minority appeasement”. He analysed about the courts terminology and other aspects this order. Surprisingly mainstream English media failed to give basic treatment of a judgement rather politicised by a single article. This is a real example of distortion of legal reporting merely a politicise narrative.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @skbadiruddin