The Madhya Pradesh High Court today reserved its order in a plea seeking interim relief to allow live reporting of court proceedings..Saying that it may consider the interim prayers of the petitioners, the Court said,."Nobody can dispute that you have a right to report.".A Division Bench of Justices Prakash Shrivastava and Virendra Singh reserved its order in a plea moved by four journalists challenging the validity of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020, which restricts the media from accessing court proceedings. .The Bench stated today,"We don't dispute your right to report, we will consider your interim prayer, but why cannot this issue be referred to a committee which can decide the validity of these rules?".Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that once there is a rule which is challenged before a judicial proceeding, then the correctness of the said rule should be decided in the judicial proceeding itself. To refer it to an administrative committee would be an abdication of judicial function, he added..Nidhesh Gupta argued by taking the High Court through the process of how various High Courts in the country have given links to the journalists..Media can see what is happening in the High Courts. Right now live hearing of Calcutta High Court is going on and I can see the arguments on Bar & Bench. Live Dialogue and arguments on Twitter is a facet of 19(1)(a) argued Gupta. .What the journalists are asking, is a small thing, a link to watch the proceedings of the High Court..He further submitted that the media has the right to report not just judgments, but also judicial proceedings, and that it is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a).."I strongly believe that the process of law cannot defeat the purpose of law," Gupta said.."I strongly believe that the process of law cannot defeat the purpose of law"Nidhesh Gupta.Gupta went on to state that in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the norm has been made the exception, and the exception has been made the rule. ."The norm is that you have judicial proceedings as a facet of open court proceedings, unless prohibited. In Madhya Pradesh, you are prohibited from reporting judicial proceedings, unless permitted. You cannot have a right to privacy in an open court," he said.."Can media report what does not come on record?:" Madhya Pradesh High Court asks, issues notice in plea to allow live reporting of proceedings.Advocate Shanno arguing for the intervenor: Gujarat High Court streams it live on YouTube. Shanno shows her mobile with the Youtube video of Gujarat High Court. Students, Litigants benefit from this YouTube streaming. Nobody is at loss here, this only increases transparency. Karnataka High Court has started Youtube Streaming of the proceedings argued Shanno..Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court, opposed the interim prayer of the petitioners and submitted that a person who is not a party to the case should not be permitted to take part in the proceedings. This will cause chaos, and sending the video link to people will give them the right to speak and the officer of the court will have to mute them, he added..Furthermore, he cited the hearing in the Juhi Chawla case, in which persons interrupted the hearing by singing songs.."It would grant them unlimited access to court proceedings without controlling their conduct. We have seen how the Juhi Chawla case was a chaos. They cannot give the links and free access to proceedings without having any rules in this regard. The petitioner might start speaking when the counsel is addressing. It would be violative of right to privacy and public is not supposed to have access to such proceedings.".Sunil Kumar Jain appearing for the intervenor, argued against giving links to the journalists. .Certain remarks should not be published in the media. Media wants to publish remarks of Judges and Advocates. Oral remarks cannot be published. Participation in legal proceedings is not a fundamental right but a legal right..Participation in legal proceedings is not a fundamental right but a legal right.Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate.Jain quoting Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar case said "A court house is not such a place into which the public have an unrestricted right of entry. The public no doubt have a right to be present in court and to watch the proceedings conducted 'there. But this is not a fundamental right"..Jain also quoted Puttaswamy case and said, there is a right of dignity of the litigant. There is a high chance of misuse of live streaming as seen in the Chief Election Commission case and Juhi Chawla case..Nidhesh Gupta rebutting Jain and Adhikari argued that- "I am not on Live Streaming. I am asking for links so that journalists from Bar & Bench and Live Law can report. Incidents like Juhi Chawla may happen. But you cannot take away a fundamental right. Its wrong to say that right to report of journalist is not a statutory right. Live text based reporting has been allowed by the Supreme Court. Every Court in the country, this link is provided. Why is Madhya Pradesh Court an exception.".Puttaswamy: Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21, Supreme Court.On Privacy, Nidhesh Gupta argued, Privacy has nothing to do here. In a case which is private in nature, like matrimony, child abuse, sexual offences, court can mandate no access be given to journalists. Privacy defence cannot be taken in Court proceedings. Privacy argument is absolutely misplaced in Open court proceedings.The Court then reserved its order on the issue of interim relief pressed by the petitioners. The Court also said "Lets evolve a system, where Court is not disturbed but there is transparency by public can see the system"..Let's evolve a system, where Court is not disturbed but there is transparency by public can see the systemMadhya Pradesh High Court.The High Court also remarked "If links have to be given, then our E Committee will determine how the links should be given. We are considering this. The Committee meeting will be done in a short while. We will make this petition as a representation before the Committee. The Court is in favour of transparency. If Rule 16 needs to be modified, the Committee will take a decision.".The plea has been moved through Advocate Manu Maheswari by journalists, Nupur Thapliyal (Legal Correspondent, Live Law), Sparsh Upadhyay (Special Legal Correspondent, Live Law), Areeb Uddin Ahmed (Legal Correspondent, Bar & Bench), and Rahul Dubey (Legal Correspondent, Dainik Bhaskar), .