Arguments on media freedom continue before SC; Fali Nariman advises Court against building a cocoon around itself

The five-judge bench continued to hear arguments today pertaining to the imposition of certain guidelines on the media. The Constitution Bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices D.K. Jain, S.S. Nijjar, RanjanaDesai and J.S. Khehar had been formed to resolve the problem of irresponsible and inaccurate reporting by the media. The Bench had been formed in response to 11 complaints filed by various senior advocates on the harmful consequences of incorrect reporting..Strangely enough, the first salvo was fired by Senior Advocate Fali Nariman who argued that even if the Court were to frame guidelines, the same would be unenforceable. Nariman was appearing on behalf of Sahara India, a company which had complained against the leak of a confidential communication which had been leaked to the press the day before the matter was to be heard in court..As reported by The Hindu, Nariman suggested that the need of the hour was self-restraint rather than the imposition of curbs on the media. “Judges and lawyers say all sorts of things in court. We can’t build a wall around us. This is not a club. But it can’t be a judge’s whims. Let us not go down that slippery path.”.This school of thought towards greater self-regulation was endorsed by the Attorney General (AG). The AG submitted that there is a certain degree of self-regulation already built into present media. “They have editors. If they feel that something has gone wrong, they act. That by itself is a check.”.Former AG Soli Sorabjee, who had also been asked by the Court to provide assistance on this matter, submitted that it would be preferable to fix a “broad based” set of guidelines on reporting matters which are sub judice which allow the courts to take incidents of misreporting on a case-by-case basis. As reported by the Times of India it was Sorabjee’s submission that a general guideline may prove difficult to enforce..Kapadia however was quick to dispel any thoughts that the court was trying to place controls on media content. If we are misrepresented, arguments are misrepresented, can’t we do anything about it. We have 11 complaints, all from senior advocates. We are misquoted day in and day out… can’t we do anything about it? “ he reportedly asked the battery of senior counsels. As reported by the Indian Express, the Court enquired as to what should be done in situations such as the leak of the CAG report. “The news item may be right or wrong, but the whole economy has already suffered”, the Court observed..Senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan was perhaps the most vocal critic of the need to formulate an enforceable set of rules against misreporting. As reported by India Today, Dhawan’s contention was that the legal mechanisms for curbing misreporting were already present in the form of contempt proceedings..This is not the first time that the Supreme Court and the media have had a difference of opinion when it comes to the manner in which court proceedings are reported. In 2011, as reported by Bar & Bench, the Supreme Court had directed that a law degree is mandatory for all journalists who are covering proceedings in the Supreme Court, a move which had faced much criticism by the media.