-The Hindu In an atmosphere of mistrust of the government, only an independent safety regulatory mechanism can counter the scaremongering against civilian nuclear power I work at an institution funded by the Department of Atomic Energy (which, however, does no nuclear research: the DAE funds a wide variety of institutions and areas in science). About a year ago, I had an e-mail from a journalist who wondered why scientists (including colleagues at...

Between 2009 and February 2011, at least 14 people were charged with sedition in India London: The typical citizen could be forgiven for fearing that the world’s largest democracy is hurtling towards George Orwell’s 1984 rather than 2013. In late August the government’s department of telecommunications, citing the “communal tensions” around Assam, blocked more than 300 individual web addresses, including the Twitter profile pages of some journalists. It also ordered a limit...

-The Indian Express Concerned about instances of reporting that breached confidentiality and threatened to hurt litigants, the Supreme Court has been, for a while, contemplating the way to regulate the journalistic coverage of ongoing cases. While the court has done well to refuse to lay down any overarching rule for all sub-judice cases, it did make a significant and troubling change by allowing a case-by-case appeal for postponing media coverage. Essentially,...

-Live Mint Court says aggrieved party can seek temporary postponement of a matter by moving the appropriate court  Mumbai/New Delhi: The good news for those who deal in news is that the Supreme Court decided against framing guidelines for covering so-called sub judice matters, or those before the courts. The bad news is that by delivering what some analysts are calling an ambiguous judgement, the apex court may have well made it easier...

-Live Mint The judgement whittles down an already embattled freedom available to the Press  In an important judgement it delivered on Tuesday, the Supreme Court has institutionalized the power to temporarily prohibit the Press from reporting court proceedings in case it interferes with the right to a free and fair trial. While the court shied from prescribing guidelines for the Press on court reporting, in the same breath it allowed individuals and companies...