Thread by @barandbench

Bombay HC will hear the PILs against media trial in late Sushant Singh Rajput's case today.

Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni will begin the hearing shortly.

#BombayHighCourt
#SSRcase

Hearing commences.

Sr Adv Aspi Chinoy appears for the Petitioner in the lead matter.

He requests the court to open the windows and doors for ventilation.

Chinoy: Feels good to be back.

Court: We feel good too.

Chinoy points out the plea in the petition pertaining to the "media trial" of investigation of death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

He points out to the guidelines of the PCI.

Chinoy reads the Norms of Journalistic Conduct which are annexed to the petition.

He reads out the provision pertaining to investigative journalism.

Chinoy specifically points out clause 43A - pertaining to trial by media.

Chinoy stresses on the point that the media report should not induce the viewer or meddle with the investigation.

He points out to another set of norms of journalistic conduct of an organisation which are applicable only to members of that organisation.

Chinoy: Really, what we are concerned with is a higher principle of new administrative of justice.

Chinoy: That media should not report on investigation or subjudice matters is not my contention.
It is the manner in which they cover the content.

Chinoy: reporting and broadcasting of a criminal matter or proceeding should never be on whom should be arrested or who is guilty.

Chinoy: commentary on witnesses and testimony is a grey area which is not well-defined.

Chinoy: It is not just against the Fundamental rights but also a contempt.

Chinoy: When reporting and commenting if you pre-judge, you cross a line. This is what I am complaining about.

Chinoy: There are about a million judgments on media trial.

Chinoy: But in RK Anand's case, which is same as what I am arguing, but I won't say it as well as the judgment.

R. K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court here: indiankanoon.org/doc/58440/

Chinoy stresses on the following sentence, something he would rely on

"The legal parameter within which a report or comment on a sub-judice matter can be made is well defined and any action in breach of the legal bounds would invite consequences."

Chinoy asks the Court to mark this sentence from the judgment:

"the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law."

Chinoy: you create a perception of guilt, at a stage where it is not established and where the investigation is not going on.

Chinoy: Pre-judging goes against the justice system.

Chinoy: There was a complete breach by the TV media. Campaigns were carried out by them - #arrest so and so.

Chinoy: This is dangerous from the rights involved in the investigation and on the administration of justice.

Chinoy: In America if there is comments from the public it is not a fair trial.
In UK, also they consider it grave misadministration of justice.

Advocate Nisha Bhambhani appearing for the NBSA intervenes that the order of the NSBA have been filed in the Affidavit. The orders pertain to reporting in the #SSRcase.

Court clarifies that the petition points out there is prejudice being created against the investigation being carried out.

Court: We are hearing the petition finally.

Chinoy moves on to the Press Council guideline.

Court: what about the orders passed by NBSA

Rajesh Inamdar appearing for a petitioner in another PIL: most news channels are not members of the NBSA.

Bhambhani points out that most complaints filled have been heard and apology has been sought from news channels

Adv. Malvika Trivedi appearing for one of the media house: There are many checks and balances, like the Del HC case of Tablighi Jamaat matter.

Trivedi: First of all these petitions are not maintainable. Even if they are, media reporting has been praised in Hathras matter.

Trivedi: There are checks and balances. Licenses can be cancelled. But a gag order will have a chilling effect.

Court: That is not Mr. Chinoy's submission. He is submitting that the media cannot intervene into investigations or declare who is guilty who is not.

Court: There is no prayer for gag order. Wait for your turn. Listen to Mr. Chinoy's arguments first.

Chinoy refers to the Affidavits to show instances of reporting of news channels.

Court: are these views of the vieweres?

Chinoy: No milords, this is the channel.

Chinoy: These are all comments by the anchors and participants.

Court: NOt all observations are objectionable.

Chinoy: No milords not all. But when a channel says 'x' should be arrested or 'y' should be arrested is wrong.

Chinoy: Asking to arrest "x" is reporting, commenting?

Chinoy: When the report comes that it is suicide and not homicide then what happens to the arrest hashtags.

Chinoy: It is not for the TV media to decide what is the conclusion.

Chinoy: TV media must realise that they cannot pre-judge the guilt of a person in a criminal matter.

Chinoy: It is not one isolated incident, it is all over!

Chinoy: There is no job to decide on anyone's guilt, or create perception of guilt or to suggest arrest.

Court asks for the PCI guidelines. They ask what is the mechanism to resolve such issues.

Chinoy points out that the guidelines are toothless, as for the past 3 months they have done nothing, taken no action.

Chinoy: Will you say later that I will take back all my wrong statements?

Chiony: the regulatory body and UOI shoudl be supporting us.

Chinoy points out to a case where there is speech of a state's CM involved.

Read In Re: P.C. Sen vs Unknown judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/1464746/

Chinoy refers to the following sentences:

Assuming that a Judge holding a trial is not likely to be influenced by comments in newspapers or by other media of mass communication may be ruled out...

Chinoy: You transgress into the investigation of justice, of crime.

Chinoy: There is continual investiagtion, they are challenging the investigation.

Chinoy: I am aware, no one is immune from criticism.

Chinoy: But when in pending investigation you say arrest x you cross line.

Chinoy points out to an affidavit submitted by a respondent to show an instance to prove how that violates the law.

Chinoy begins reading.

Court points out they have already marked.

Chinoy continues reading.

Bench smile looking at each other.

Chinoy: This is the minimal level of justice required. Investigative journalism - go ahead, criticize, comment, by all means. but don't pre-judge at a stage where nothing is decided.

Trivedi (for news channel) points out that the petition filed by the police officers is entirely different.

Trivedi: What is being pointed out right now is for the accused to argue.

Trivedi: The petition being argued right now pertains only to maligning of the police.

Court again directs all other counsels to not speak out of turn and to let Chinoy finish his arguments.

Chinoy: The issues with media trial must be crystallized.

Chinoy: Broadcasters association is a voluntary association. Some are members, some are not.

Chinoy points out to the code of ethics of NBSA.

Bhambhani (for NBSA) intervenes that NBSA will file guidelines if required.

She asks the court to read the order at their convenience.

Court: When your turn comes you invite out attention. Why do you think, we will not see documents?

Bhambhani apologizes for intervening.

Chinoy points out to an affidavit which discusses the Press council guidelines.

He points out to a provision pertaining to the self-regulation, that the broadcasters must refrain from showing objectionable being defamatory, etc.

Chinoy points out the 17th law commission report: obligation which intervenes with the administration of justice is contempt.

Chinoy: We are merely saying what is your role in covering criminal matters?

Chinoy: There is dearth of statutory supervision. that is my petition.

Correction: There is dearth of statutory *provision.

Chinoy: when you make guidelines for PCI, why not make similar guidelines for broadcasting media on pre-judgments, etc.

Chinoy: this matter should concern court. This is concerning matter of fair trial.

Court: According to you this is beyond right of public to know? right to information.

Chinoy: this is beyond know. This is not information, this is attributing guilt.
This is not criticism or reporting. There is no objection to that.

Court: Refers to a judgment of SC which deals with "lakshman rekha" in media trial.

Chinoy: There are 20 judgments milord. I did not want to burden the court.

Court asks for the ASG to respond.

Petitioners in other matters speak.

Court: we have specifically asked for the Ld. ASG only!

Court asks the ASG Anil Singh about the affidavit filed by the under-secretary Mr. Premchand.

ASG points out that there is another affidavit filed.

Court asks about that affidavit.

Court directs ASG that they will be hearing the remainder of the matter on Monday, if the Union wants to bring anything new on record they should do so by Monday.

Court allows all parties to complete their pleadings to bring on record any evidence by Monday.

Inamdar (for another petitioner) invites the court's attention to an affidavit filed by him.

BEfore the affidavit he asks the Court to see the orders passed by the court on 3 and 10 september wherein the Court had directed media houses to show restraint in their reporting.

Inamdar: Court had only asked for restraint, there was no gag order.

Inamdar: Two media houses ran a show for 50 minutes on the same night that media cannot be silenced (referring to Republic TV).

Court gets confused as to which affidavit.

Court: We will commence with the hearing of the next petition on Monday

Bench rises for the day.

Hearing will continue on Monday October 12 at 3 pm.

Bombay HC hears PILs against Media Trial in Sushant Singh Rajput case: LIVE UPDATES

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…