The recently promulgated Supreme Court’s “Revised Norms for Accreditation of the Legal Correspondents in the Supreme Court of India” makes a law degree mandatory for journalists to cover the Apex Court proceedings.

Further it mandates that a journalist should ordinarily have seven years’ Court reporting experience in a daily newspaper and/or a national or international news agency or electronic Media Organization of which at least five years must be at Supreme Court or at any High Court(s) in India. Provided, however, that out of the said period of five years three and a half years at least should, immediately prior to the application for accreditation, be continuous.

An Electronic Media Journalist should have five years continuous regular court reporting experience for an Electronic Media Organization, immediately prior to the application for accreditation, of which at least two years must be in Supreme Court or at any High Court(s) in India.

It is for the first time in history, a law degree mandatory for all reporters covering the Apex Court proceedings. Till now, a reporter, without a law degree, could get a temporary six-months pass and cover the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The revised norms do not specify when it comes into effect.

Clause 6 of the rules deal with “Temporary Accreditation” for “working journalists desiring to report regularly the Supreme Court proceedings”. Clause 8 deals with “Temporary Reporting Facility” for journalists who can access the court “for a day/short duration or for a specific case”. They should be accredited by the Press Information Bureau.  Clause 10 says “Grant of accreditation will be in sole discretion of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and his decision in this regard shall be final and binding on all.” Further clause 11 says “The accreditation, whether permanent or temporary, can be withdrawn, at any time, without assigning any reason.”

Bar & Bench brings you some views on the Supreme Court’s guidelines

R. Jagannathan, Editor-in-Chief, Firstpost said: “The requirement that Supreme Court proceedings can only be covered by people with a law degree defies common sense. If only chartered accountants can comment on company results, if only doctors can report on medicine and hospitals, all reporters would need to do another five years of specialised courses - which is a waste. You do an MBBS to become a doctor, not to write about medicine. Restricting court reporting to law degree holders would mean restricting the profession to a closed cabal of law insiders. The law expert can also miss the obvious - since ultimately court decisions need to pass the common sense test, which requires no law degree. If the reasoning behind this new requirement is that reporters sometimes misrepresent what the court says or rules, maybe the Supreme Court should mandate a short, one-day course for court reporters which focuses on the do's and don'ts or court reporting. A law degree is a waste of everybody's time.”

Speaking to Indian Express former Chief Justice of India V N Khare said: “This is not fair. When on one side you are talking of transparency...why is even a law degree necessary? You, as a correspondent, are not going to the SC to argue a case but to report. Journalism is a profession by itself. So when you report a matter concerning engineering, do you as a reporter need to have an engineering degree? So how many degrees do you need?”

P. George Giri, Advocate-on-Record in Supreme Court said: “It is a good move from the part of the Supreme Court of India. Prevention is better than cure. The norms introduced by the Supreme Court are only a reasonable restriction on the press freedom. Otherwise, there is every possibility to spread unwanted news by the media; by the reports of the young and energetic journalists, without properly understanding the court procedures.”

Rohit Panikker, correspondent with Times of India said: “It's important that every journalist knows in depth about what they're reporting; and ideally, a law background enables them to give the story a better perspective over straight reportage. But then, that also brings forward the question of what would happen to those journalists who have built their reputation over the years in reporting SC proceedings despite not having a law degree. If that's the case, does a film reporter require a filmmaking degree to go about his work?”

Siddharth Varadarajan editor at The Hindu speaking to Live Mint said: “While I share the concerns of the honourable Judges that Court proceedings are sometimes not reported accurately, the solution lies in proper editorial supervision by our newspapers and TV channels, rather than by specifying with mathematical precision, the onerous qualifications Court reporters must possess in order to be given access to a Court room.”

Jyothy Jawahar, Sub-Editor, Kerala Law Journal said: “An Independent and critical media is an essential element for an informed democracy. But the ethical heights set for themselves by the mainstream media are not always reached. A structural reform is essential in order to bring about a change in the way of reporting especially while reporting legal matters. The importance of these issues is reflected in the high level of public interest they stimulate. Thus, the revised norms issued by the Supreme Court prescribing adequate qualification and experience for legal correspondents are a welcome step.”

It has to be seen when these norms will become effective. If these norms come into force more than 80 percent of current reporters covering the Court proceedings will be disqualified.

Full text of the revised norms is available here.