Bombay High Court will hear the PILs filed registering protest over the media trial being conduct in the reporting on the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput today.
Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni will begin the hearing shortly
Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni will begin the hearing shortly
In the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat continued arguments on behalf of the petitioners point out how the state had abdicated from its constitutional responsibilities by merely forwarding complaints to private organisations like NBA.
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
Hearing begins.
Advocate for one of the respondents points out there is some confusion regarding the appearances.
Court asks the associate to get it corrected.
Court asks the associate to get it corrected.
Court calls upon Asim Sarode to begin his arguments.
Since he is not connected into the meeting, Court moves on to next petition filed by In Pursuit of Justice.
Since he is not connected into the meeting, Court moves on to next petition filed by In Pursuit of Justice.
Advocate Neela Gokhale appears for the petitioner.
Gokhale: My submission is publications made before, filing of an FIR should also be subject to contempt law through Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Gokhale: My submission is publications made before, filing of an FIR should also be subject to contempt law through Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Gokhale is giving a brief history of the act.
Gokhale refers to a landmark judgments of Supreme court to show what was interpreted as "imminent proceeding".
Gokhale: whenever publication is aware that proceeding is imminent then such publication should be considered as contempt
Gokhale refers to a landmark judgments of Supreme court to show what was interpreted as "imminent proceeding".
Gokhale: whenever publication is aware that proceeding is imminent then such publication should be considered as contempt
Gokhale: (cont) if such publication obstructs the proceedings.
Gokhale relies on CrPC beginning from Section 154 to show how to know what is imminent criminal proceedings.
Gokhale relies on CrPC beginning from Section 154 to show how to know what is imminent criminal proceedings.
Court asks Gokhale if she can argue on how the such publication during investigation will interfere with the administration of justice.
Court asks Gokhale to clarify more on what is administration of justice and how has courts interpreted that.
Court asks Gokhale to clarify more on what is administration of justice and how has courts interpreted that.
Gokhale points out how in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, there were blatant actions which would amount to interference in administration of justice.
For instance: When officers investigating were called for interviews, where the relatives and friends could not freely move.
For instance: When officers investigating were called for interviews, where the relatives and friends could not freely move.
Gokhale submits that the judgments that she has submitted, the courts have discussed what is interference in the administration of justice.
Gokhale continues to explain how to determine imminent criminal proceedings.
Gokhale continues to explain how to determine imminent criminal proceedings.
Gokhale: When there is FIR, it will lead to 482 CrPC, or trial will take place or closure will take place.
Gokhale: But once the magistrate has control over the FIR ovelooking the investigation, then criminal proceedings begin for the purpose of determining contempt.
Gokhale: But once the magistrate has control over the FIR ovelooking the investigation, then criminal proceedings begin for the purpose of determining contempt.
Court: Kindly see the section 3 (of contempt of court) and sub-section 2. pendency of the case is important.
Gokhale reads the explanation of those sections.
Gokhale reads the explanation of those sections.
Gokhale: This explanation is not something which will restrict or abrogate the main section.
Gokhale: the doctrine of imminent proceedings has been evolved in Supreme Court and high courts. THis has been considered in AK Gopalan case.
Gokhale: the doctrine of imminent proceedings has been evolved in Supreme Court and high courts. THis has been considered in AK Gopalan case.
Gokhale: Explanation does not restrict as a proviso, it explains the intention of the legislatures (when you have to know what is test of imminence)
Gokhale: Sahara case, Sushil Sharma has relied on the doctrine of imminence.
Gokhale: Sahara case, Sushil Sharma has relied on the doctrine of imminence.
Court: What is the function of the court? To interpret the law?
Court: you want us to read judicial proceeding - and criminal proceeding begins with registration of FIR.
Court: by this, are we not laying down a law exactly opposite to what the legislature intends?
Court: you want us to read judicial proceeding - and criminal proceeding begins with registration of FIR.
Court: by this, are we not laying down a law exactly opposite to what the legislature intends?
Court: What you are asking us to do is do something opposite to what the parliament intends.
Gokhale invites court's attention to Section 3.
Gokhale: Milord is right, I cannot ask or you would agree that the starting point should be FIR.
Gokhale invites court's attention to Section 3.
Gokhale: Milord is right, I cannot ask or you would agree that the starting point should be FIR.
Gokhale: But if broadcaster is aware would milords not consider the precedents that when proceedings are imminent, then there is contempt?
Gokhale: even if we are saying proceedings are pending, then when the area magistrate takes cognizance, it is imminent proceeding.
Gokhale: even if we are saying proceedings are pending, then when the area magistrate takes cognizance, it is imminent proceeding.
Court asks Gokhale to point out where the magistrate has right to monitor the investigation.
They point out that it is with the executive, till chargesheet is filed.
Court: if the sessions police officer does not register FIR, then the party can approach the magistrate u.154(3
They point out that it is with the executive, till chargesheet is filed.
Court: if the sessions police officer does not register FIR, then the party can approach the magistrate u.154(3
Court: What you are asking is against the act, it cannot work like that.
Gokhale asks the court to see Gopalan judgment.
Read A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen here: indiankanoon.org/doc/203322/
Gokhale asks the court to see Gopalan judgment.
Read A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen here: indiankanoon.org/doc/203322/
Court asks Gokhale to read paragraph 25 - as the paragraph Gokhale was reading was a minority view.
Gokhale says that she wants to rely on the ratio
It suggests and indicates that if there is knowledge of imminent proceeding, then contempt can be invoked.
Gokhale says that she wants to rely on the ratio
It suggests and indicates that if there is knowledge of imminent proceeding, then contempt can be invoked.
Court: How can an opinion be referred to when it is given by a minority view judge?
Court says it will not accept AK Gopalan and asks Gokhale to submit another case.
Court says it will not accept AK Gopalan and asks Gokhale to submit another case.
Court asks Gokhale to come to AK Gopalan and refers to an unreported judgment relied upon in AK Gopalan judgment which says filing of a first information report does not, by itself, establish that proceedings in a court of law are imminent.
Gokhale argues that if there is so much media speculation and discussion, that there is bound to be interference. It depends on case to case.
Gokhale then refers to Sushil Sharma vs The State (Delhi Administration)
Read judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/1205615/
Read judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/1205615/
Gokhale stresses on the point the sentence - "There is no quarrel with the proposition as law laid down in 'the above authorities cited by Mr. Anand, but the facts of each case have to be seen on there own merits."
She reads on what can be considered as "denial of a fair trial".
She reads on what can be considered as "denial of a fair trial".
Gokhale sums up that if imminent proceeding can be seen, then without going into the technicality, the court must consider it contempt for fair trial and administration of justice.
Gokhale reads out important paragraphs of several more judgments which she has filed in the Court.
She submits that she will give a short note on the judgments.
She submits that she will give a short note on the judgments.
Gokhale: I want to argue regarding the regulation of the state over the media.
Gokhale: Press Council has filed an affidavit. They mention about the notification, to which no one has complied with.
Gokhale: Press Council has filed an affidavit. They mention about the notification, to which no one has complied with.
Gokhale: Please consider that the broadcasters have reported an imminent proceeding and please consider it contempt.
Gokhale ends her arguments
Gokhale ends her arguments
Asim Sarode begins with his arguments.
He submits that the issues in his arguments pertain to 1. Cable TV regulation act,
2. that right to freedom of speech to be considered, and
3. regarding mental health act.
He submits that the issues in his arguments pertain to 1. Cable TV regulation act,
2. that right to freedom of speech to be considered, and
3. regarding mental health act.
Sarode refers to sections of the Cable Regulation Act Section 2(a) (“authorised officer”) and Section 19 (Power to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest)
Sarode: I have filed complaint with Commissioner of Pune but no action was taken.
Sarode: I have filed complaint with Commissioner of Pune but no action was taken.
Sarode: My submission is government executive should be given more powers to act on the Cable TV network act.
Sarode refers to Consumer Protection act provisions to point out that right to information includes factual information with safeguarding freedom of speech.
Sarode refers to Consumer Protection act provisions to point out that right to information includes factual information with safeguarding freedom of speech.
Sarode: Media must consider freedom of speech responsibly and consumers must exercise right to hear responsibly.
Sarode: I want to submit that the consumer right to listen should be considered.
Sarode: I want to submit that the consumer right to listen should be considered.
Sarode: My last submission is victim's rights of the mental health act, that their rights have to be protected.
Court: Where is the pleading for your second issue on hearing?
Sarode: No milord it is not.
Court: Where is the pleading for your second issue on hearing?
Sarode: No milord it is not.
Court: I have been hearing your petition from months, but you never mentioned these.
Court: We know this is PIL, but do not take other parties by surprise. We are not accepting your argument.
Sarode: You can use those arguments for other connected matters too milord.
Court: We know this is PIL, but do not take other parties by surprise. We are not accepting your argument.
Sarode: You can use those arguments for other connected matters too milord.
Court: Yes, but then mention something in some pleading.
Sarode apologises and continues with the third issue pertaining to mental health act.
Court asks where is the victim word defined?
Sarode says it is defined in the CrPC.
Sarode apologises and continues with the third issue pertaining to mental health act.
Court asks where is the victim word defined?
Sarode says it is defined in the CrPC.
Court points out that the definition of victim in Mental Health Act should be taken from the Indian Medical Council Act.
Sarode argues further that there must be helplines for victims of mental health which can be used when there is such coverage of deaths by suicides.
Sarode argues further that there must be helplines for victims of mental health which can be used when there is such coverage of deaths by suicides.
Sarode ends his arguments.
Court calls upon the next petitioner for arguments.
Court calls upon the next petitioner for arguments.
Advocate Sunny Punamiya starts his arguments.
Punamiya begins his arguments by relying upon the contempt laws in the United Kingdom.
This is to show that the media house is most interested in the verification, in investigation, in arrests, and rarely in the final chargesheet.
Punamiya begins his arguments by relying upon the contempt laws in the United Kingdom.
This is to show that the media house is most interested in the verification, in investigation, in arrests, and rarely in the final chargesheet.
Court: We just read a case where a minority judgement relying on English law was not considered.
Punamiya refers to Vishakha judgment to point out that international law was referred to pass guidelines.
Court: But we have a judgment, with a majority view.
Punamiya refers to Vishakha judgment to point out that international law was referred to pass guidelines.
Court: But we have a judgment, with a majority view.
Court: You are saying that media information should be stopped from reporting anything?
Punamiya: no, only report accurate facts. Reporter does some background check, he puts out and there are opinions on it.
Court: English law argument cannot be considered.
Punamiya: no, only report accurate facts. Reporter does some background check, he puts out and there are opinions on it.
Court: English law argument cannot be considered.
Court asks ASG Anil Singh to revert on the arguments.
Court: Today only till 5pm not till 6.30pm (referring to yesterday's hearing which went on till 6.45pm in another matter) *laughs*
ASG Singh apologizes and begins with his arguments.
Court: Today only till 5pm not till 6.30pm (referring to yesterday's hearing which went on till 6.45pm in another matter) *laughs*
ASG Singh apologizes and begins with his arguments.
ASG: I will start with the issue of guidelines which is sought by petitioners.
ASG points out prayer clauses in all petitions which seek guidelines.
ASG: In every petition the grounds, the prayer and the argument is that the existing mechanism is not sufficient.
ASG points out prayer clauses in all petitions which seek guidelines.
ASG: In every petition the grounds, the prayer and the argument is that the existing mechanism is not sufficient.
ASG: We have to see whether there is vacuum in the guidelines.
ASG: we do not support media trial, the laws and judgments are clear.
ASG: there is existing statutory frameowrk which cover electronic media.
ASG: we do not support media trial, the laws and judgments are clear.
ASG: there is existing statutory frameowrk which cover electronic media.
ASG: there are certain stages where the complaints are cosnidered before coming to the government.
ASG refers to compilation of judgment and takes court's attention in the matter of Destruction Of Public and Pvt. Property
Read judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/169453366/
ASG refers to compilation of judgment and takes court's attention in the matter of Destruction Of Public and Pvt. Property
Read judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/169453366/
Invites court attention to:
"It is a fundamental paradigm of freedom of speech that media must be free from governmental control in the matter of "content" and that censorship and free speech are sworn enemies."
"It is a fundamental paradigm of freedom of speech that media must be free from governmental control in the matter of "content" and that censorship and free speech are sworn enemies."
ASG reads out suggestions recorded in the judgment.
ASG: The SC was informed about the NBA model which was accepted. They accepted that media should not be interfered with.
ASG refers to Sahara judgment. Read judgement here: casemine.com/judgement/in/5…
ASG refers to Sahara judgment. Read judgement here: casemine.com/judgement/in/5…
ASG refers to the issue for Court consideration in Sahara judgment: Are there any legal or constitutional impediments to the Court framing mandatory guidelines for the press/ media?
ASG reads our Justice Khehar's question whether prejudice can be shown in each case of publicatio
ASG reads our Justice Khehar's question whether prejudice can be shown in each case of publicatio
ASG points out arguments of Sr. Advs. KK Venugopal and Shanti Bhushan.
ASG asks the court to note the arguments of Sr. Adv. KTS Tulsi: IT has been held that freedom of press is not only an essential pre-requisite of democracy but mother of all liberties. Articles 14, 19 and 21 do not constitute water-tight compartments.
ASG reads out Kailash Vasdev's arguments: The parliament has not enacted any law for regulating or controlling, reporting/ covering issues by the press.
It is not open for this hon'ble court to lay down guidelines for reportage. There are adequate safeguards and remedies.
It is not open for this hon'ble court to lay down guidelines for reportage. There are adequate safeguards and remedies.
ASG reads out the instances of reportage argued by Sr. Adv. Siddharth Luthra which prejudice rights of the accused under Article 21.
ASG jumps to the ratio of the judgment where the prayers of the case were reproduced. ASG points out that the prayers are similar to present case.
ASG jumps to the ratio of the judgment where the prayers of the case were reproduced. ASG points out that the prayers are similar to present case.
ASG invites the Court's attention to the observations made by the Supreme court.
The court interrupts ASG that they will continue these arguments on Friday at 10.30.
The court interrupts ASG that they will continue these arguments on Friday at 10.30.
Court asks the counsels how much time will all of them take.
Arguments end for today.
Hearing will continue on Friday at 10.30 am.
Arguments end for today.
Hearing will continue on Friday at 10.30 am.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
