SC told that regulation of media amounts to unwarranted legislation No sensational judicial answers to sensational media reports says Editors Guild on Day 4

The Supreme Court was once again reminded that it did not have the powers to frame rules on the manner in which sub judice matters are reported in the media. On the fourth day of arguments, the Constitutional Bench heard the submissions of the Editors Guild of India and Foundation of News Media Professionals. These arguments were bolstered by Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing as amicus in the matter, who said that postponement of reporting court proceedings would not be in the best interest of the public.

The Supreme Court was once again reminded that it did not have the powers to frame rules on the manner in which sub judice matters are reported in the media. On the fourth day of arguments, the Constitutional Bench heard the submissions of the Editors Guild of India and Foundation of News Media Professionals. These arguments were bolstered by Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing as amicus in the matter, who said that postponement of reporting court proceedings would not be in the best interest of the public.

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is representing the Editors Guild, continued his vocal opposition to the creation of rules for media reporting. As reported by the Hindustan Times, Dhavan told the five-judge Bench that the country had “not developed sufficiently rich jurisprudence on the question of balancing media rights against other rights.”

Dhavan was emphatic that rules on media regulation, if created by the Apex Court, would imperil the fundamental rights granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. As reported by The Hindu, Dhavan said that “All fundamental rights in Article 19, including Article 19(1)(a), can be limited only by reasonable restrictions in accordance with law. The Article 19 code cannot simply be overridden by invoking Article 21. However, the expanded Article 21 can be factored in as a part of reasonableness on the basis of law. What we need is an approach giving the press latitude, but setting out broad limits. In effect, what we need are not guidelines but a clearer and more emphatic jurisprudence evolved on a case-by-case basis.”

Dhavan also opined that more pragmatic methods need to be adopted, such as discussions with senior editors rather than the creation of legally enforceable rules. As reported in the Times of India Dhavan was more in favour of a consultative process rather than an adversarial approach.

Another bone of contention was the reporting of “scurrilous PILs”. The Supreme Court was of the view that the media would often analyse, interpret and sensationalise such PILs without even waiting for the court to examine the matter. To which Dhavan’s answer was “Prima facie, there will be sensationalism in the press and you [the court] can't stop it.”

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, who had been appointed as amicus in the matter, supported the consultative approach offered by Dhavan, saying that rather than impede free speech, these guidelines could, in fact, assist the media. Such guidelines, he osberved, would “…mitigate or render the media less vulnerable to a situation in which the media are required to interpret these [legal] phrases for themselves.”

Venugopal was also against the idea of postponing the publication of news, advocating the use of injunctions restricting publication of a particular event rather than postponing the same. Postponement till the trial was complete would render the “news” redundant, thereby defeating the rights of the media.

Arguments are expected to continue on April 10, 2012.

You can read the previous day's coverage here.