Recently the Supreme Court published new norms regarding accreditation of legal correspondents. These norms make law degree mandatory for being recognised legal correspondent to cover the Apex Court proceedings.

This was published on the website of the Supreme Court of India on August 20, 2011 and had no clue as to when these norms comes into effect. On August 24, 2011 they amended the norms published and made it clear these norms came were with effect from January 3, 2007. Wonder why these norms were not made public for almost five years!

Not only a Law degree is mandatory for accreditation temporary or permanent, but the rules also mandate that a journalist should have seven years’ Court reporting experience in print media of which, at least five years must be at Supreme Court or at any High Court(s) in India.  If it is an electronic media Journalist, he / she should have five years continuous regular court reporting experience for an electronic media Organization, of which at least two years must be in Supreme Court or at any High Court(s) in India.

These rules will certainly disqualify more than 80 percent of the journalists reporting Court proceedings. At least for temporary accreditation the rules should have been relaxed. Thankfully for temporary reporting facility, which is for day or two, they have not made Law degree mandatory and also seven-year experience norm.

The irony is that for electronic media journalists who mostly broadcasts without editorial supervision, need only five years of continuous experience, of which two years experience must be there of reporting the proceedings of the Constitutional Courts. But whereas print media journalists whose work goes through thorough editorial supervision needs seven years of experience of which at least five years experience must be there of reporting the proceedings of the Constitutional Courts.

The intention of the Apex Court is clear that they want Court proceedings to be reported accurately and not to create chaos due to faulty reporting. But this is not the right way to implement that. A law degree is obtained to practise law as prescribed under the Advocates Act and not necessarily to report court proceedings. Introduction of courses / modules like ‘law reporting’ in syllabus of journalism programmes would make more sense. Supreme Court coordinating with the National Legal Services Authorities can also organize workshops and seminars for journalists covering the Court proceedings. A practical approach is needed rather than hard and fast rules.

The UK Supreme Court has got a press office which aims to provide a comprehensive service to media professionals seeking information about the Court’s hearings and wider work.  All the judgments of the UK Supreme Court are accompanied by a press summary which makes it easier for media professionals to understand the judgment and report more sensibly. The Apex Court of Australia also provides summaries of judgments that make it easier for media professionals to understand the judgments. The Supreme Court of Canada has also got a separate wing to handle the media called the ‘Media Relations Committee’. This is something worth emulating by the Indian Supreme Court rather than imposing a blanket ban on journalists without law degree.

Last but not the least, it should not be forgotten that our Judges sit and decide upon a plethora of matters that are far beyond their competence. One may argue that expert committees assist these Judges; but it is pertinent to note that the ultimate decision is taken by the Judges themselves.  

The most absurd part of the rules is the clause 11 which states that “The accreditation, whether permanent or temporary, can be withdrawn, at any time, without assigning any reason.” This is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable.

Sudden implementation of these rules is certain to create a vacuum in the field of legal journalism.  It will definitely turn many capable reporters unqualified to report the Court proceedings. Being the most powerful Apex court in this world, is not a license to shut the doors of temple of justice to people whom it does not like!

Title of the editorial is adapted from the book ‘Supreme but not infallible’ published by Oxford University Press.

Raghul Sudheesh is Associate Editor at Bar & Bench. You can follow him on Twitter.