Thread by @barandbench

#BombayHighCourt will be hearing PILs filed registering protest over "media trials" stated to have been conducted in reporting on the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

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

The Court had in the previous hearing asked the parties to make submissions on the adverse effects of media trial on investigations and whether the Court has power to lay down any guidelines on the issue.

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Hearing commences.

Sr. Adv. Aspi Chinoy appearing for one of the Petitioners places a judgment of the Delhi HC which was directly on point with the questions which the court had posed in the previous hearing.

The judgment is of ZeeNews.

Chinoy is reading the judgment - Navin Jindal v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd.

Read judgment here: indiankanoon.org/doc/115501094/

Chinoy: It directly answers the question posed by your Lordships on whether media trial in the police investigation means interference in the investigation.

The clarification we are seeking is in the interest of justice. We are not asking Milords to regulate or pass any law.

Chinoy: The judgment points out that interference in the investigation is contempt of court.

Chinoy concludes his submission.

ASG Anil Singh begins his submissions on the questions posed by the Court.

ASG: Whether is void or absence of law?

I submit that there is statutory and self-regulatory mechanism in place.

What Mr. Chinoy argued that even at any stage of police investigation will amount to interference in justice and contempt is attracted, I have AK Gopalan judgment.

ASG: The SC judgment says that the date of arrest is the start of trial. This is the majority view.

The contention is, before an accused is arrested, contempt law will apply. I submit that SC judgment says it is from the date of arrest.

ASG: I begin my submissions by pointing out the Programme Code of the Cable TV Network Act.

The relevant sections have already been shown.

Section 5 - programme code specifically states that transmission is allowed only if it confers with the programme code.

ASG: There is an authorised officer in place who will check.

Court: Mr. Singh you have submitted on the statutory and self-regulatory mechanism, show us from the CrPC.

ASG apologises for reiterating and proceeds to refer to the SC judgment - AK Gopalan.

The judgement - A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen is available here: indiankanoon.org/doc/203322/

ASG: Two things from this judgment - and minority view.

Reads para 10 which gave the minority view.

ASG: They have held that proceedings become imminent after the arrest took place.

Even prior to filing of chargesheet, the provisions of contempt can be applicable but only AFTER the arrest has taken place.
Because the criminal proceedings become imminent after that.

ASG proceeds to show Sahara judgment.

Court interjects: perhaps no one has noticed, the contempt act does not define contempt in the 1952 version.

The new Act of 1971 have defined contempt, so then does AK Gopalan have any relevance left?

Court: And you are referring to Luthra’s submission from Sahara, he has given an instance where the relatives were interviewed by the media.

The court had deprecated that action. That is relevant in this case.

Court: When Gopalan was delivered, the contempt of court act was of 1952.

With the 1971 act there has been a sea change in law.

What is the relevance of AK Gopalan after that?

Court: The 1971 covers a wider area for contempt. SO therefore let us not cloud our vision by referring to Gopalan.

ASG: My submission to show Sahara judgment was that AK Gopalan was referred to in Sahara.

The SC held that the courts cannot pass blanket orders, it has to be on a case to cases basis.

I am not submitting that the courts have no jurisdiction.

ASG: Whether in this background are we required to frame guidelines? I am submitting on that.

But the observations in the Kolkata High Court judgment which Milords have asked me to refer to does not contain contempt submissions.

ASG: I am submitting that on the point of guidelines, there is a already a mechanism in place, I am reiterating.

The SC has given guidelines, once there is a guideline, would the Court be required to frame.

Not disputing the jurisdiction, but the mechanisms are in place.

ASG concludes his submissions.

Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar begins his submissions in rejoinder to Chinoy’s arguments.

Datar refers to NBSA framework to submit the programme code applies to a pre-trial stage too. So guidelines for what ought to be transmitted is applicable to pre-trial stage.

Datar: There is no shortage of regulatory framework.

Datar: We have got enough jurisprudence on S.2(c)(ii) of Contempts of Court Act.

There is dearth in Sections 2(c)(iii).

Answering the relevance of AK Gopalan, I will submit that the Sanyal committee report looked into the definition of contempt.

Court: Gopalan, we have to look into the facts.

Datar: I would request Milords to dvelve on AK Gopalan too much. There are recent judgments of Kerala HC, where the Courts have asked media to restrain on reporting in matters after arrests have been made.

Media channels have been directed not to discuss over arrests and charges

Datar: Milords are not confined by the Contempts of courts Act. The Courts of law have been given the liberty to what comes under contempt.

Courts of arm are long enough to interpret any action and bring it under the ambit of contempt.

Courts arms*

Datar: This is not the last case before your Lordships, this has been going on since Nanavati days.

I am citing English cases because today there is no judgment of our courts on common law of judgment.

The English cases will help the court in interpreting the law of contempt

Datar appearing for NBSA concluded his submissions.

Sr. Adv. Siddharth Bhatnagar appearing for the News Broadcasters Federation begins his submissions.

Before concluding his submissions, Datar assured the court that the NBSA will soon come out with guidelines on reporting of media after registration of FIR.

Bhatnagar makes a primary submission that the contempt courts act 1971 was taken after the Joint Parliamentary Committee.

Bhatnagar makes his submissions that the existing framework have powers to take actions against any perceived and this was considered by the SC too which is why it did not frame guidelines despite having powers.

Bhatnagar concludes his submissions.

Court asks other Advocates to submit their written arguments and concludes the hearing.

Matter is reserved for judgment.

Death of Sushant Singh Rajput: Bombay High Court reserves Judgment in petitions against Media Trial [LIVE UPDATES]

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…