Home/Articles/Allahabad HC Preventing Live…

Allahabad HC Preventing Live Reporting Of Its Hearing Raises Concerns Regarding Freedom Of Press To Cover Court Proceedings

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
27 June 2024 11:00 AM

Share this

While hearing a PIL Plea challenging Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s election as an MP from the Rae Bareli constituency, the Allahabad High Court yesterday asked a LiveLaw reporter to stop reporting on the court proceedings and immediately leave the Courtroom premises.

Sparsh Upadhyay, an associate editor with LiveLaw, and the only journalist present in the courtroom posting live updates on Live Law’s official Twitter handle from his mobile phone, was asked by a bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal to vacate the court-room with the words, "Aap bahar jakar apni reporting kariye".

Also Read – Information Utilities Under IBC: Navigating Judicial And Regulatory Complexities

This episode raises questions about its broader implications for journalistic freedom and the public’s right to be informed about court proceedings, especially in matters that interest and sometimes affect the public at large.

Also Read – CCTV Cameras And Making Of Surveillance Societies
Being one of the pillars of Democracy, the judiciary is tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice, and its proceedings are typically open to the public to maintain transparency and accountability.

However, with the happening of such incidents, the Judiciary risks eroding public trust and accountability by curbing the media’s ability to report on its proceedings despite the availability of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press.

Also Read – How To Fulfill Requirements Of Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence Under Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023?

It must be underscored that this right of the press or a Journalist is not just a privilege but a fundamental necessity as by providing real-time updates and insights, reporters ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done to the public at large, a principle that is essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system.

However, before moving ahead, let us understand what actually transpired inside the Court-room. The hearing on the PIL plea was conducted in two sessions (pre- and post-lunch). The details of pre- and post-lunch sessions are summarised below:

Pre-lunch Session:

The bench presided at 10:15 AM sharp. The petition was at item no. 18. The hearing in the matter commenced at approximately 12:19 PM. The courtroom was about 70% full, predominantly occupied with lawyers 9and their clerks and a few interns) awaiting their matters. The reporter, standing near a three-seater bench (placed on the right side of the Court) meant for interns and advocate clerks, was live-tweeting the proceedings.

During this session, the court primarily focused on Advocate Ashok Pandey, who represented the PIL petitioner, Mr. Vignesh Shishira. The court questioned why Pandey had not filed a Demand Draft (DD) of ₹25,000/—along with the plea, as mandated by a 2016 High Court order.

In this session, the court also reprimanded the petitioner, Mr. Shishira, for standing too close to the counsel near the dais. Though the Court wanted to adjourn the matter for another day, Advocate Pandey insisted that it be heard that day. At his insistence, the Court decided to take up the matter again post-lunch. This session concluded at around 12:46 PM.

Post-lunch Session:

The post-lunch session began at approximately 4:27 PM, two hours after the court reassembled (at 2:30 PM). The court resumed questioning Advocate Pandey, again asking about the 2016 order of the High Court that required him to file a DD of ₹25,000/—with each petition.

Advocate Pandey claimed his right to file petitions during his argument without submitting the required DD.

5 minutes into the hearing, at around 4:32 PM, Justice Alok Mathur directed his attention to the LiveLaw reporter, who had been standing near the three-seater bench and live-tweeting the proceedings. Justice Mathur instructed, "Yeh reporting aap bahar jakar kariye (Do your reporting from outside the court-room)."

The reporter, seeking confirmation, asked if the direction was indeed for him. Justice Mathur affirmed, "Ji aap. Aap bahar jaaiye aur wahan jakar reporting kijiye apni," (Yes, you. Go outside and do your reporting there)"

Following this directive, the reporter left the courtroom. A tweet was posted from the LiveLaw’s Twitter handle by the reporter (at around 4:36 PM), stating that the bench had asked the reporter to leave the courtroom.

The post-lunch session lasted approximately 12-15 minutes after the reporter exited the court-room.

It is out of the question that a court holds the absolute authority to expel individuals who disrupt court proceedings. However, in this instance, the reporter was not causing any disturbance that would warrant such action. He was simply posting live updates of the court proceedings on Live Law’s Twitter handle from his mobile phone, maintaining a quiet and unobtrusive presence in the courtroom.

The matter assumes greater significance when the Supreme Court has been a staunch advocate of open courts in recent years, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and public access as fundamental principles of judicial proceedings.

The Apex Court has been of the view that the courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in in-camera proceedings, as open access to courts is “essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms”.

One of the most significant steps in this direction was the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India Court (2018) wherein the top Court had cleared the deck for live streaming of cases of national and constitutional importance.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", the bench said while allowing live streaming of court proceedings.

By allowing the public to witness the workings of the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court has opened its doors to greater public participation and understanding of judicial processes.

Apex Court’s ‘openness to public’ was further strengthened by the 2021 Judgment of the highest court in the case of Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar LL 2021 SC 244 in which it was categorically held that the freedom of media to report court proceedings was also a part of the process of augmenting the integrity of the judiciary and the cause of justice as a whole.

In this case, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah had dismissed the Election Commission of India’s plea against the oral remarks of Madras High Court that the ECI was "singularly responsible for COVID second wave" and "should probably be booked for murder charges"(Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar).

Rejecting ECI’s plea to stop media reporting of oral remarks as lacking in substance, the Court emphasized that media coverage of court hearings was part of freedom of press and it had a bearing on citizens’ right to information and also on the accountability of the judiciary.

Importantly, the Top Court had also observed the freedom of media to report court proceedings was also a part of the process of augmenting the integrity of the judiciary and the cause of justice as a whole

The judgment also referred to the new-age developments in court-room reporting, such as live accounts of hearings given on Twitter and other social media platforms.

One is also reminded of a statement made by CJI DY Chandrachud in 2022 when he said that the mindset of judges of High Courts and subordinate judiciary, who do not encourage the use of phones inside the courtrooms, should change.

Justice Chandrachud narrated an incident in which he found someone recording what was being said in his courtroom. He remarked that instead of taking the traditional view on the issue, he reflected that if something is being said in open court, then there is no harm in recording it.

"Yesterday, I saw someone in my court using a mobile device, possibly recording what we were saying. I said (to myself), if I am saying something in open court and if somebody wants to record it, what is the big deal? Anyway we are saying it in open court," CJI said.
It may be interesting to note that the reporter who was asked to leave the courtroom by the Allahabad HC today is one of the petitioners in a petition (presently pending before the HC) seeking permission for Live Streaming and Live Reporting of Court proceedings across the State of Uttar Pradesh, including the High Courts, Subordinate Courts, and Tribunals.

Hearing this plea, the Allahabad High Court had, in May 2021, observed that its administrative side was working on all aspects of live streaming and live reporting of Court proceedings for wider public access.

"No one is disputing your right. They’re working on all the aspects of the matter, we have to give them some time," a Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Jayant Banerji had said.

In a similar petition before Madhya Pradesh, in which two reporters of LiveLaw (including Nupur Thapliyal and Sparsh Upadhyay) were petitioners, the Court orally remarked in June 2021 that it was “undisputed that journalists have a right to report and access to Court proceedings going live.”

A Division Bench of Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Virender Singh had orally observed that the Journalists’ right to live report the court proceedings cannot be disputed.

Later on, within 10 days of the conclusion of arguments in the matter, the MP High Court decided to start sharing VC links on its website while disposing of the plea.

Live reporting from courtrooms enables journalists to provide timely and accurate information, preventing the spread of misinformation and ensuring that the public can access credible news sources.

By restricting a journalist’s right to live report court proceedings, the Judiciary would be inadvertently undermining the principles of open justice and the public’s right to be informed about the Court proceedings.

Tags
Live ReportingLive reporting of Court ProceedingsRight To Live Report Court Proceedings#Allahabad High Court#Swapnil Tripathy v. Supreme Court of India

Similar Posts

Information Utilities Under IBC: Navigating Judicial And Regulatory Complexities
The success of insolvency proceedings critically hinges on the availability of complete, correct, and up-to-date information about the debtor. Such comprehensive information is rarely available to all stakeholders in equal measure. This disparity can hinder the resolution process and compromise the objective of value maximization, while the…

CCTV Cameras And Making Of Surveillance Societies
The recent explosion of CCTV usage in society has made it a quintessential aspect of the material culture of technology in such a way that it is nearly impossible to not come under its watch in the public sphere. It is estimated that there are about one billion surveillance cameras in operation worldwide. Delhi, the national capital of India,…

How To Fulfill Requirements Of Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence Under Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023?
The advent of technology has ushered in a transformative era in the legal landscape, significantly altering the nature of evidence presented in court cases. In recent years, there has been a remarkable shift towards an increasing reliance on electronic evidence. The ubiquity of digital devices and the widespread use of online platforms have…

Towards Robust Competition Law In India: Addressing Hub And Spoke Cartels
The significant growth of Indian markets and a paradigm shift in business operations prompted the Government of India to establish the Competition Law Review Committee (CLRC) in 2018. The CLRC was tasked with examining and suggesting modifications to the Competition Act of 2002. In 2019, the CLRC submitted its recommendations to the…

Critically Examining The Draft Guidelines For Prevention And Regulation Of Greenwashing, 2024
India’s consumer rights sentinel, i.e., The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), has released the draft Guidelines for the Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing, 2024. It is to be issued under sub-clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Greenwashing, has been permeating the market at a …

India Back To Coalition Era: How The Government Will Respond To Challenges Of Fiscal Federalism?
Recently, India held its 18th Lok Sabha election, which concluded without any single political party securing the majority (272) required to form the government in the Centre. The Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, became the single-largest party by securing 240 seats. The BJP managed to form the…
Misinformation And Deepfakes In The Age Of AI
The increasing innovations in technology has led to the development of new facets of generative AIs and deepfakes. With the major developed countries bringing legislation to regulate their misuse, the authors analyse the Indian landscape and suggest measures for the same. In the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, one might have…

Press Freedom At Risk: Why Centre’s Move To Control Online News Space Raises Concerns
The Government’s move can strangle the remaining bastions of independent journalism.

A Primer On Avoidance Transactions Under Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code
Corporate insolvency and bankruptcy are critical issues that impact the financial stability and operational viability of businesses. In India, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”) serves as a comprehensive framework to address insolvency and ensure timely resolution. During insolvency or liquidation proceedings, the primary…

Judicial Interference And Indian Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. versus Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd[1] (Delhi Metro case) has got arbitration practitioners, lawyers and academics talking and introspecting alike, with almost everyone having an opinion on it. This has been criticised by some as the death…

Examining Public Examinations (Prevention Of Unfair Means) Act: Does It Pass Critical Lens?
They say a single piece of paper cannot decide your future. In India, quite the opposite is true. The frequent rumours of paper leaks, malpractices at the examination center, discrimination with the candidates, etc., with regard to public examinations, have marred even the little faith in the testing agencies. With the recent rising…

Judiciary During Coalition Government : Potential Changes In Power Dynamics
A coalition government is back in power in India after ten years. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), having fallen short of the majority mark, is now dependent on its allies within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to form the government. Although the NDA government, with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, is continuing with most of the Ministers…