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/symbolic-protest-in-court-14921.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Symbolic protest in court | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Symbolic protest in court

-The Telegraph

The counsel for the Editors Guild, a professional body of senior journalists, today announced its exit from hearings related to an effort by the Supreme Court to lay down norms for covering court proceedings.

“We have decided we will not address this bench any more. This bench has no lis (jurisdiction),” senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan declared when the court sought to know whether he would respond to arguments of those seeking such norms.

Under law, a court can only take up a legal issue when it arises in a pending case that has come up for a decision. On the issue of reporting guidelines, there’s no cause of action pending before the apex court.

But a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia, had decided to hear out-of-turn applications filed by some corporate houses such as Vodafone and Sahara, alleging violation of their rights by the way the media reported their cases. The Editors Guild had opposed attempts to lay down the norms.

Dhavan later said the guild felt that the top court was now sitting in “advisory jurisdiction” and hence the hearings should be boycotted.

Dhavan’s gesture, which came at the very end of the controversial proceedings, is being seen as an attempt to shame the bench into not pressing ahead with the hearings. The top court is expected to wrap up arguments by tomorrow.

T.N. Ninan, the president of the Editors Guild, said this evening: “Don’t think it is a boycott. Dr Dhavan has said he has said what he had to say and does not want to argue further. He has already argued extensively and submitted written arguments.”

During the hearing today, Justice Kapadia again clarified that he was not in favour of muzzling the media, or punishing the media but the effort was only intended at making the media aware of its “Lakshman rekha”.

The media must know its limits, he said, indicating that the court would only etch the contours of Article 21 (right to life) and try to clarify when Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) must make way for the right to life, which includes right to a fair trial to an accused and the presumption of innocence.

Several counsels had pointed out the impracticality of laying down reporting guidelines.

Appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates’ Association, counsel Ashok Arora said lawyers and judges must first carry out their duties in alleviating the condition of the 80 per cent poor instead of focusing on the media’s duty. He dismissed the demands for reporting norms as that of “neo-rich” lawyers.

The government, which had initially suggested self-regulation, has changed tack and contended the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression was not on the same footing as that of an individual citizen and was a lesser right.