A batch of petitions calling for restrictions on court reporting has been referred to a larger bench of the Kerala High Court..On Thursday, a Bench of Justices PN Ravindran, AM Shaffique and K Harilal took the view that the issue requires the consideration of a larger bench..The order was passed in petitions filed by Dejo Kappan of Centre for Consumer Education, and a Kerala-based organization called Public Eye. Tagged along with these matters was a suo motu petition taken up by the High Court, in light of the stand-off between the Bar and the media that took place in July 2016..In his petition, Kappan has raised the issue of inaccurate reportage of oral observations by judges. The petition notes,.“The reporting of observations during arguments by the Judges with regard to the cases in Kerala is deprecating the prestige of High Court of Kerala.”.In this light, he has prayed that the media be restricted from reporting on oral observations made by judges in court. Instead, it was recommended that the Court only permit the publication of written, interim and final orders of the Court..The petition filed by Public Eye calls for reforms in reporting of criminal trials. Among other things, it has been prayed that the media be restricted from publishing any information on the accused, suspect, victim, or witness before a trial court’s verdict; banned from publishing names and photographs of judges, lawyers, and investigating officers; and prevented from accessing judgments and orders from offices of judges. It was also prayed that authorities be directed to frame guidelines for court reporting..The Court, while hearing the present petitions, had framed the following questions for determination, in its order passed on February 21 last year:.Whether existing regulations are sufficient to keep the media within bounds;Is the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahara India Real Estate vs. SEBI case final on the powers of the court to frame guidelines for reporting court proceedings;Whether the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) available to media organizations;Whether a media room available to reporters at the apex court be provided at the high court also;Is media obligated to publish true and correct version of news and whether they can project its own policies and views as part of news;Whether citizens are entitled to know the true and correct events covered by news items and to insist for true and correct report in terms of right to freedom of speech and expression.Representing the Times Group in the High Court, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj had submitted that constitutionally permitted reasonable restrictions already regulate the media through laws such as the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Press Council Act, 1978. He had also argued that the media ought to be allowed to self-regulate, claiming that if there were instances of inaccurate reporting, such reports would be and should be corrected by the media itself as and when pointed out..He had also pointed out that in 2015, the Court had heard a petition calling for a gag on the press from reporting or publishing any news related to hartals/strikes. In that case – S Sudin v. Union of India – a Full Bench led by then Acting Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan had held that no such restriction could be imposed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226..As a consequence of this decision, it was argued that the present Bench could not take a different view and lay down guidelines for court reporting, and that the matter would have to be referred to a larger bench..After hearing various media organisations, the Kerala High Court Bar Association and other lawyers’ bodies, the Bench went on to consider the issue at hand in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India, wherein privacy was held to be a fundamental right..Specifically, it was argued that in light of Puttuswamy, the right to privacy can be invoked not only against the state, but also against private entities, including the media. Therefore, it was submitted that the decision in Sudin requires a re-look through the lens of the privacy judgment..However, the Bench ultimately held,.“…in view of the fact that Sudin was decided by a co-ordinate bench, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper for us to venture to consider the question whether in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in K.S.Puttuswamy, a different view from what has already been stated in Sudin should be taken. In our considered opinion, such an exercise can be undertaken only by a Larger Bench of this court..Having regard to the importance of the issues arising for consideration and the repeated observations made by the Apex Court and this court regarding the deleterious effect of trial by media, which certainly interferes with the administration of justice, the issues raised require an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench. We therefore deem it appropriate to adjourn these cases to be heard by a Larger Bench of this court.”.Therefore, the Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice, who will determine the composition of the larger bench..Last year, the Delhi High Court had also constituted a Committee to look into streamlining of reporting from Court. This Committee has been tasked with looking into a number of issues, including whether real time reporting/live -tweeting of court proceedings should be permitted, whether reporting of oral observations of judges be allowed and whether accreditation should be mandatory for reporting from courts. A questionnaire was also released by the Committee to ascertain views of public in this regard..Read the judgment:
A batch of petitions calling for restrictions on court reporting has been referred to a larger bench of the Kerala High Court..On Thursday, a Bench of Justices PN Ravindran, AM Shaffique and K Harilal took the view that the issue requires the consideration of a larger bench..The order was passed in petitions filed by Dejo Kappan of Centre for Consumer Education, and a Kerala-based organization called Public Eye. Tagged along with these matters was a suo motu petition taken up by the High Court, in light of the stand-off between the Bar and the media that took place in July 2016..In his petition, Kappan has raised the issue of inaccurate reportage of oral observations by judges. The petition notes,.“The reporting of observations during arguments by the Judges with regard to the cases in Kerala is deprecating the prestige of High Court of Kerala.”.In this light, he has prayed that the media be restricted from reporting on oral observations made by judges in court. Instead, it was recommended that the Court only permit the publication of written, interim and final orders of the Court..The petition filed by Public Eye calls for reforms in reporting of criminal trials. Among other things, it has been prayed that the media be restricted from publishing any information on the accused, suspect, victim, or witness before a trial court’s verdict; banned from publishing names and photographs of judges, lawyers, and investigating officers; and prevented from accessing judgments and orders from offices of judges. It was also prayed that authorities be directed to frame guidelines for court reporting..The Court, while hearing the present petitions, had framed the following questions for determination, in its order passed on February 21 last year:.Whether existing regulations are sufficient to keep the media within bounds;Is the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahara India Real Estate vs. SEBI case final on the powers of the court to frame guidelines for reporting court proceedings;Whether the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) available to media organizations;Whether a media room available to reporters at the apex court be provided at the high court also;Is media obligated to publish true and correct version of news and whether they can project its own policies and views as part of news;Whether citizens are entitled to know the true and correct events covered by news items and to insist for true and correct report in terms of right to freedom of speech and expression.Representing the Times Group in the High Court, advocate Kaleeswaram Raj had submitted that constitutionally permitted reasonable restrictions already regulate the media through laws such as the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Press Council Act, 1978. He had also argued that the media ought to be allowed to self-regulate, claiming that if there were instances of inaccurate reporting, such reports would be and should be corrected by the media itself as and when pointed out..He had also pointed out that in 2015, the Court had heard a petition calling for a gag on the press from reporting or publishing any news related to hartals/strikes. In that case – S Sudin v. Union of India – a Full Bench led by then Acting Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan had held that no such restriction could be imposed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226..As a consequence of this decision, it was argued that the present Bench could not take a different view and lay down guidelines for court reporting, and that the matter would have to be referred to a larger bench..After hearing various media organisations, the Kerala High Court Bar Association and other lawyers’ bodies, the Bench went on to consider the issue at hand in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India, wherein privacy was held to be a fundamental right..Specifically, it was argued that in light of Puttuswamy, the right to privacy can be invoked not only against the state, but also against private entities, including the media. Therefore, it was submitted that the decision in Sudin requires a re-look through the lens of the privacy judgment..However, the Bench ultimately held,.“…in view of the fact that Sudin was decided by a co-ordinate bench, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper for us to venture to consider the question whether in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in K.S.Puttuswamy, a different view from what has already been stated in Sudin should be taken. In our considered opinion, such an exercise can be undertaken only by a Larger Bench of this court..Having regard to the importance of the issues arising for consideration and the repeated observations made by the Apex Court and this court regarding the deleterious effect of trial by media, which certainly interferes with the administration of justice, the issues raised require an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench. We therefore deem it appropriate to adjourn these cases to be heard by a Larger Bench of this court.”.Therefore, the Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice, who will determine the composition of the larger bench..Last year, the Delhi High Court had also constituted a Committee to look into streamlining of reporting from Court. This Committee has been tasked with looking into a number of issues, including whether real time reporting/live -tweeting of court proceedings should be permitted, whether reporting of oral observations of judges be allowed and whether accreditation should be mandatory for reporting from courts. A questionnaire was also released by the Committee to ascertain views of public in this regard..Read the judgment:
