The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court came out with a judgment this week that could potentially hamper freedom of the press..A Bench of Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and SS Sundar on Monday directed the High Court’s Registrar to instruct print and electronic media outlets not to publish the names of lawyers and judges appearing in cases..And the reasons for issuing this order are not very clear..To say the least..The details of the case itself are murky; the order stems from a writ filed by one advocate S Baskar Mathuram in an incident involving minor children. The Free Press Journal reported that police had registered cases against six school-going Dalit children, aged between seven and twelve years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act earlier this month..The petitioner sought, among other things, to quash the FIR lodged in respect of the crime alleged to have been committed in Madurai district. He also sought compensation for the innocent children who have been named in the FIR, and for the area to be declared as an “untouchability prone” area..The judgment also notes that a news report published earlier this month prompted the advocate to file his petition. The court, however, refused to entertain the petition altogether, dismissing it as an attempt to gain popularity..The judgment states,.“If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of soliciting work on one’s part.”.The petitioner did not get away with a mere telling off; the Bench went on to direct the Registrar to lodge a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry with a view to taking action against the petitioner..The state Bar Council has been given six months to file an “action taken” report. This, despite the fact that a four member Child Welfare Committee concluded that the FIR was a “fabricated one” filed under pressure of a community leader, who also happens to be a legal practitioner..Quite bizarrely, the court went on to elucidate on the negative aspects of publishing the names of legal practitioners in the media..“…publication of names of practitioners who may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates.”.The Bench proceeded to order a similar prohibition with respect to judges as well..“The reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them.”.Towards the end of the judgment, the court directs the state government to come up with a policy to prevent the media from disclosing the identity of juveniles in conflict with law..“We take this opportunity to remind the State Government to put in place a policy decision to ensure that the Print and Electronic Media does not while reporting instances of similar nature from furnishing any details which are capable of enabling the readers or general public to come to know of the identity of either the victims or those juveniles who are in conflict with law.”.The court then directed the state to make the “necessary decision” within the next thirty days..The issue of preserving a balance between freedom of the press and interests of justice has come up time and again in the courts. In 2012, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice SH Kapadia decided whether or not to frame across-the-board guidelines for reporting sub-judice matters. The court in that case found no reason to frame such guidelines, as.“What constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on case to case basis.”.While restraint in reporting of sensitive cases is desirable, it is hard to understand how the publication of the names of judges and lawyers in cases would qualify as an “offending publication”..Moreover, if such a rule is implemented, it will not exactly help things at a time when the judiciary is being criticised for its lack of transparency. It will be interesting to see how the Press Council of India, and members of the fourth estate, react to this judgment..A Kannan appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General B Pugalendhi represented the respondents..Read the judgment below:
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court came out with a judgment this week that could potentially hamper freedom of the press..A Bench of Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and SS Sundar on Monday directed the High Court’s Registrar to instruct print and electronic media outlets not to publish the names of lawyers and judges appearing in cases..And the reasons for issuing this order are not very clear..To say the least..The details of the case itself are murky; the order stems from a writ filed by one advocate S Baskar Mathuram in an incident involving minor children. The Free Press Journal reported that police had registered cases against six school-going Dalit children, aged between seven and twelve years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act earlier this month..The petitioner sought, among other things, to quash the FIR lodged in respect of the crime alleged to have been committed in Madurai district. He also sought compensation for the innocent children who have been named in the FIR, and for the area to be declared as an “untouchability prone” area..The judgment also notes that a news report published earlier this month prompted the advocate to file his petition. The court, however, refused to entertain the petition altogether, dismissing it as an attempt to gain popularity..The judgment states,.“If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of soliciting work on one’s part.”.The petitioner did not get away with a mere telling off; the Bench went on to direct the Registrar to lodge a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry with a view to taking action against the petitioner..The state Bar Council has been given six months to file an “action taken” report. This, despite the fact that a four member Child Welfare Committee concluded that the FIR was a “fabricated one” filed under pressure of a community leader, who also happens to be a legal practitioner..Quite bizarrely, the court went on to elucidate on the negative aspects of publishing the names of legal practitioners in the media..“…publication of names of practitioners who may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates.”.The Bench proceeded to order a similar prohibition with respect to judges as well..“The reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them.”.Towards the end of the judgment, the court directs the state government to come up with a policy to prevent the media from disclosing the identity of juveniles in conflict with law..“We take this opportunity to remind the State Government to put in place a policy decision to ensure that the Print and Electronic Media does not while reporting instances of similar nature from furnishing any details which are capable of enabling the readers or general public to come to know of the identity of either the victims or those juveniles who are in conflict with law.”.The court then directed the state to make the “necessary decision” within the next thirty days..The issue of preserving a balance between freedom of the press and interests of justice has come up time and again in the courts. In 2012, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then Chief Justice SH Kapadia decided whether or not to frame across-the-board guidelines for reporting sub-judice matters. The court in that case found no reason to frame such guidelines, as.“What constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on case to case basis.”.While restraint in reporting of sensitive cases is desirable, it is hard to understand how the publication of the names of judges and lawyers in cases would qualify as an “offending publication”..Moreover, if such a rule is implemented, it will not exactly help things at a time when the judiciary is being criticised for its lack of transparency. It will be interesting to see how the Press Council of India, and members of the fourth estate, react to this judgment..A Kannan appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General B Pugalendhi represented the respondents..Read the judgment below:
