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/sc-puts-curbs-on-court-reporting-utkarsh-anand-17080.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC puts curbs on court reporting -Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

SC puts curbs on court reporting -Utkarsh Anand
-The Indian Express

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the media to be partially restrained while reporting judicial proceedings by drawing a “Lakshman rekha” for what it called balancing the freedom of expression and a fair trial. But the apex court refused to impose blanket restrictions saying guidelines on reporting cannot be framed across the board.

The court laid down the partial line of restraint through the principle of “postponement of publication”, under which an aggrieved party can move a High Court or the Supreme Court seeking deferment of publication of sub-judice matter. After going through the content in question and the impact of its publication, the court can pass appropriate orders.

However, such “guidelines on reporting cannot be framed across the board”, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said in its order.

“What constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on a case to case basis...such orders of postponement should be for short duration and without disturbing the content of the publication...it should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial,” the bench said.

“A journalist should know this is a Lakshman rekha and if he passes this rekha, there will be a contempt of court. Postponement order will obviate them from possible contempt,” the Chief Justice said.

The order was passed on complaints alleging breach of confidentiality during the hearing of a dispute between the Sahara Group and market regulator SEBI. Certain documents regarding the dispute were leaked to the media.

The bench described the postponement orders as a “neutralising device”, not “punitive” but “preventive”, to be passed by a writ court if any other alternative remedy, such as change of venue or postponement of trial, failed to balance conflicting interests of society’s right to know versus fair administration of justice.

The court said the media was free to challenge the postponement of publication orders in “appropriate proceedings”, adding that the orders were permissible under the inherent powers of the court and constituted reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

It also said that postponement orders will protect the media from getting prosecuted or punished for committing contempt. The contempt of court law was meant not only to punish but also gave the courts power to prevent acts which could interfere, impede or pervert administration of justice, the bench said.

The order of the bench also noted that framing guidelines was undertaken by the court as an exercise of exposition of limitations under the constitutional provisions.