Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/call-to-dismantle-sc-media-bench-14318.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Call to dismantle SC media bench | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Call to dismantle SC media bench
-The Telegraph

Former law minister Shanti Bhushan today urged the Supreme Court to dissolve a five-judge Constitution bench set up to lay down dos and don’ts for media reporting on sub judice cases, saying it was “detrimental to the rights of the press and would destroy democracy”.

Bhushan cited an earlier example in which a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) had dissolved a bench after he found no support.

He was referring to a move by former CJI A.N. Ray who set up a 13-judge bench — ostensibly at the behest of Indira Gandhi who elevated him to the post bypassing several other senior judges — to reconsider the Kesavananda Bharti ruling.

In the verdict, the top court had held that Parliament did not have the right to amend the basic structure of the Constitution. But the review bench was dissolved after several hearings, apparently because of lack of support from Ray’s fellow judges to his cause — of letting Parliament have a free hand in amending the Constitution.

Bhushan beseeched current Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, who set up the media bench a few weeks ago, not to embark on a “futile exercise” that would be detrimental to the rights of the press and destroy democracy in the country. “No purpose will be solved by going through this exercise,” said Bhushan, who appeared on behalf of some journalists.

Bhushan, also a member of Anna Hazare’s team, put forward an argument often cited by the anti-corruption crusader that the people were sovereign. That is the reason why even the right to freedom of press was not absolute, he said. It was instead left to Parliament to lay down reasonable restrictions on the freedom, he said.

Bhushan asked the top court to point out a single instance where “injustice” had occurred because of media reporting. “Public debates help,” he said, citing the example of the Jessica Lal case that was reopened after an outcry.

Bhushan said it would be difficult to pinpoint a case where the media had ended up misleading the courts. He argued that such fears could be considered valid in a judicial system where lay persons acting as jury members could be influenced by press reports.

But that is not so “in our judicial system in which a trained judge sifts through evidence to come to a conclusion. “How will any publication prejudice the accused? Counsels arguing the case may not always be adequate (to bring out the truth). A public debate may bring it up. All institutions in our democracy are people’s institutions. Even the judiciary is accountable to the people. People have a right to know what is happening.”

Bhushan stressed the need for “external vigilance”. “People function through the media. Every issue is now pending in courts. So should the people not be allowed to debate cases? Then we will cease to be a democratic republic.”

But Justice Kapadia, who has taken up this case ahead of many others, shrugged off the arguments made by Bhushan and Anil Diwan, who appeared for Anil Diwan for The Hindu editor Siddharth Varadarajan.

In his submission, Diwan contended the move to lay down guidelines would “abridge” the freedom of individuals instead of “protecting” them or “disciplining” officials.

Justice Kapadia then asked Diwan to explain whether the rights of the press could be balanced to ensure administration of justice and protect the rights of accused to a free trial in a criminal case. The hearings will continue tomorrow.