Media entitled to report on cases of public importance: Journalists move Madhya Pradesh High Court for live-streaming, permission to attend Court

Four journalists have moved a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court calling for the live-streaming of court proceedings urging that restrictions hindering the media and the public from attending virtual court proceedings be lifted (Nupur Thapliyal and ors v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and anr)..The petition has been moved by legal journalists Nupur Thapliyal, Sparsh Upadhyay (Live Law), Areeb Uddin Ahmed (Bar & Bench) and Rahul Dubey (Dainik Bhaskar Prakashan)..In particular, the following rules of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audio- Visual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020 have been challenged:.1. Rule 2(xv), defining Required Person’ to include witnesses, advocates, other persons in whose presence the court proceeding is required to be conducted or who are permitted by the Court to attend the proceedings.2. Rule 3(vi), which states, "Unless expressly permitted, no person or entity ... shall be permitted to record visual electronic linkage. In case of violation it will be punishable in accordance with law.”3. Rule 16 which provides that third parties would be allowed to attend the court proceedings only upon a specific order being issued by the Court..Effectively, these rules bar the entry of litigants, third parties and strangers (including journalists) into the virtual Courtroom, without the express permission of the Court. .Except lawyers appearing and arguing in the matter, all other persons and entities are excluded from participating or attending the proceedings, the petitioners highlighted. .".... Journalists and media persons are allowed to attend the hearings only on a 'specific order' issued by the 'concerned Court', which means that if an order is not issued by the concerned Court, then the journalist like the petitioners cannot attend the proceedings and they always risk adverse action being instituted against them for attending the said proceedings unauthorizedly", the petitioners pointed out..This scheme of things has now been challenged on grounds that: The media has fundamental rights to attend, observe, transcribe and report on virtual proceedings of any matter being heard by the Court having public ramifications on the society. Section 153(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that courts should be ‘Open Courts.’ The overall paradigm shift of the Indian judiciary is towards ensuring overall transparency and easy and convenient access to media, journalists and overall citizenry of the society. When the Supreme Court, through its various judgments and official press statements, has been emphasizing upon maintaining transparency, visibility, the challenged rules clearly defeat, frustrate and run counter to the spirit of various judgments and precedents of the Supreme Court..Notably, the petitioners have made special mention of the need to provide the media and the public access to court proceedings that concern the COVID-19 crisis. ."This is to ensure that the general public are in a position to watch the Court Proceedings live and be informed about the sincere and serious indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for tackling various problems being faced by the three wings of democracy i.e. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, as also the public at large owing to the covid-19 pandemic", the petition stated..To buttress their submissions, the petitioners have relied on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Chief Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar & Ors, wherein the top Court had declined to bar the media from reporting live on court proceedings, including oral observations made in open Court.."Media should be able to report everything to create accountability:" Five Highlights from Supreme Court hearing in the Election Commission plea.Further, reference is also made to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India wherein the top court had emphasized on the importance of 'Open Courts' to ensure transparent and easily accessible justice. In the same case, the Supreme Court had also endorsed the notion of live-streaming court proceedings. .One step closer to sunlight? Supreme Court forms panel to examine live streaming of cases.Apart from urging the Court to strike down the rules under challenge, the petitioners have also prayed that the proceedings of the High Court be streamed live. .In this regard, it is pointed out that the Gujarat High Court is already streaming some of its court proceedings (including those concerning COVID-19 management) live on YouTube. .It is further noted that the 'Jitsi’ platform presently used to conduct virtual proceedings by the Madhya Pradesh High Court may not permit live streaming. If that is the case, the Court has been urged to shift to another virtual platform that may permit live-streaming. .Jitsi not user-friendly, shift Madhya Pradesh High Court hearings to Zoom/ Webex: MP Bar Council Chairman writes to Justice DY Chandrachud.As interim relief, the petitioners have prayed that the media be allowed to attend, observe, record, and live report on the virtual court proceedings "possessing constitutional significance, of public importance or having widespread social implications on the society at large.".The plea has been moved through Advocate Manu Maheshwari..Three of the petitioners had earlier moved the Allahabad High Court seeking similar reliefs.."Open Court, Open Justice:" Journalists move Allahabad High Court for access to court rooms, VC hearings to report High Court proceedings live