How open are Indian Courts and how open should they be? Panelists discuss in DAKSH session

The opaqueness of Indian Constitutional courts and the extent to which they should be opened to media reportage and public scrutiny was discussed in some detail on Tuesday in a panel discussion organised by DAKSH..The session on Media And its Role in Governance and Accountability saw opinions exchanged between High Court judges Justices Rajiv Shakdher and GS Patel, legal journalist Apurva Vishwanath and DAKSH Co-founder Harish Narasappa. The discussion was moderated by Surya Prakash BS, Programme Director at DAKSH..Both Justices Shakdher and Patel were against the straitjacket regulation of the media, although they expressed concerns over the media reporting on things out of context or in isolation..From a journalist's point of view, Vishwanath, who is Assistant Editor for the Indian Express, pointed out that while the Delhi High Court may be on the more open side, this is not the case in general."I am sorry to say that our Constitutional Courts are one of the most opaque public institutions that we come across in the country", she said. .In the course of her talk, she also pointed out that it was difficult to gauge information on past judgments and cases from court records alone. An additional hurdle flagged, which emerged in the recent years, was sealed covers. Vishwanath noted, "It is important to the public to know what is driving the court's decision, how it is impacting other cases...but all of these mostly come in something that has been discussed over the last two years - these come in sealed envelopes, only to the judge, the public is not given access...and there is this infantilization of the press that happens most of the time - that the judge will look into it, and not anyone else.".When it comes to live-reporting of court proceedings, the difficulties faced by a court reporter include what kind of matters ought to be reported beyond merely what is dictated in a judgment or an order, she said..Referring to concerns raised over reporting on isolated courtroom incidents, she commented that journalists also face dilemmas on what to report. "Why shouldn't a casteist remark made by a judge in court be reported, or a sexist remark? Or if a judge is dozing off in court during a death penalty hearing, should it be pointed out to the public?", she asked. .She added, "I am sure videoconferencing or live-telecasting of courts will bring a lot of these questions in the public domain. These will no longer be things that we will quietly wonder about in newsrooms but these will be public discourse.".Another concern flagged concerned the language in which judgments are drafted. "Increasingly, even when the judgment is read in open court, even the operational part, it is very difficult to understand what really is happening", Vishwanath said. .Additionally, the audibility of judges in courtrooms was also pointed out."In most cases - this is one of our pet peeves - there is a lack of microphones in court. No judge in the Supreme Court that I have seen in the last 6 years has ever used a microphone in court", Vishwanath informed..On his part, Narasappa highlighted that the judiciary is an open system, rather than a system where decisions were taken in private. The judiciary should not compromise on its openness, he said while answering a question on whether court proceedings should be live streamed. "The judiciary needs to ensure that its openness is not compromised because of misguided reporting or improper reporting", he said.However, he added,"The judicial process, the impartiality and principles of natural justice, comes first, even before the need to share information.".[Read a more detailed account of the session]