अदालतों की मीडिया कवरेज

मंगलवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट के संविधानिक पीठ ने अदालती सुनवाई की कवरेज के एक नए संविधानिक सिद्धांत  को लागू किया। अदालत ने इस संवेदनशील मामले पर पहली नज़र में कोई गाइडलाइन ज़ारी नहीं की। पर फेयर ट्रायल के सिद्धांत की रक्षा के लिए मीडिया पर पाबंदी का रास्ता खोल दिया है। यह एक महत्वपूर्ण खबर थी। खासतौर से पिछले दिनों कई मामलों में मीडिया ट्रायल शब्द का इस्तेमाल होने लगा। उसे देखते हुए लगता था कि शायद अदालत कोई व्यापक गाइडलाइन ज़ारी करेगी, पर वैसा नहीं हुआ। पर अदालत के इस फैसले पर काफी कुछ विवेचन बाकी है। हिन्दी अखबारों में यह विवेचन कहीं दिखाई नहीं दिया। देश के पहले दस अखबारों में से कितने हिन्दी के अखबार हैं, यह अखबारों के विज्ञापनों में हर तीसरे महीने दिखाई पड़ता है। पर इन अखबारों की कवरेज कैसी है, यह रोज़ नज़र आता है। बहरहाल ऐसे सवालों पर विचार करने वाले दो-तीन अखबार अंग्रेज़ी में दिखाई पड़ते हैं। सम्भव है बांग्ला, मलयालम और किसी दूसरी भारतीय भाषा में सांविधानिक सवालों पर विवचन होता हो, हिन्दी में नहीं होता।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के इस नए सिद्धांत पर कुछ अखबारों के सम्पादकीय क्या कहते हैं, इसे पढ़ें। इन सम्पादकीयों में चिन्ता के स्वर हैं।

The Hindu
Don’t compromise open justice

We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Court’s judgment justifying a temporary ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order looks like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine-member Bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the “difficult constitutional balance” between freedom of expression and the administration of justice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasising the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs — a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle — filed by accused persons with means.

The five-judge Bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain “there is power in the courts to postpone the reporting of judicial proceedings in the administration of justice.” Even in the U.S., where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved “neutralising devices” to prevent the corruption of the administration of justice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high-profile cases will try their best to obtain postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkar judgment also said restraint on publication and closed door trials could apply only in exceptional cases. In all other cases, a court can launch contempt proceedings if a news report attempts to subvert the course of justice. When there is no evidence to show this system of checks and balances has failed, why try and move away from it?

Indian Express


Lines of control

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, it laid down a constitutional principle to allow aggrieved parties to move the courts to temporarily debar media coverage if it is seen to prejudice a trial or interfere with the administration of justice. This “doctrine of postponement” of reporting is meant to be a preventive measure, rather than a punitive one, and is intended to balance the right of free speech with the right to a fair trial. The courts, the SC said, will evaluate each appeal carefully, guided by considerations of necessity and proportionality. However, the very outlining of the principle, in effect, leaves journalism at the mercy of the high court, rather than being internally regulated with better editorial gatekeeping.

Around the world, exceptions can be carved out in special cases where there is a compelling chance of media exposure clouding the outcome. But to indicate that these restraints can be routinely sought and given has chilling implications. India has an open justice system, which rests on the premise that a vigilant, watching public and operational transparency in judicial proceedings has a role in keeping the trial fair. What’s more, India’s media culture is relatively restrained, compared to the live drama in countries like the US. Should mere misgivings about its influence lead to a system where sensitive legal proceedings could be off-limits? The other question, of course, is about what kind of publicity can be restrained. These are digitally networked times when anyone can be a journalist, publisher and broadcaster, where citizens can break a piece of news, and comment is free. How will the trial be sealed off from all public attention?

While the Supreme Court has been cautious in wording this principle, it must also remember its own long tradition as protector of press freedom. In the absence of a First Amendment-style provision, it is the court that has upheld media freedoms with its expansive interpretation of Article 19(a), as part of a citizen’s fundamental right to free expression. They must not dilute that commitment now.