The hearing in the PILs against media trial, in the wake of sensationalised reportage in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, today saw Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy re-assert that guidelines should be issued by the Court in the matter. Appearing for the petitioners, Chinoy made his rejoinder arguments today. ."The problem with law is that if there was a robust mechanism in place, it was surprising to see channels for months on end to call people for arrest", Chinoy observed as he started his arguments today..Referring to the prevailing media regulation mechanisms, Chinoy went on to argue,"What we need to do is consider what is this so-called mechanism. Has it worked? And what can be done to enhance it or improve it with directions of the court?".He went on to recount that under the Cable Television Networks Act, transmission can be stopped if a media channel violates the Programme Code. .On the other hand, Chinoy submitted that non-statutory mechanisms such as the News Broadcasters Association regulations comprise a code of conduct of ethical standards, "which do not deal with anything we are talking on.".He went on to point out that between the two mechanisms, the Government has been slow to act against irresponsible media reportage. In this regard, Chinoy submitted,"Looks at the grievances of the public, there is suo motu action and there is no explanation by the government of the actions they have taken. If they had acted, we wouldn’t have had to come here. But they did not see what is going on.".He added,"They are of the view that it does not amount to contempt of court. I am just formulating it just for clarity. Because your Lordships were repeatedly told there was regulation. See the regulation, what have you done with it?".Chinoy clarified that he is not suggesting that there should not be any commenting or critical reporting. However, he emphasised that there should not be any interference with the administration of justice. "You are no judge or jury to decide who should be investigated or hounded", he went on to assert..As for the Government's response in recent times, and presumably in reference to the media coverage in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, Chinoy remarked, "... if a campaign of 2 months is not looked into, what is the reason of the Government of India? This is not doing its duty or not having power, both which requires judicial intervention.".He added, "Stray incidents are fine, but this sustained reporting for so long with no response..! In putting in guidelines, your Lordships are giving the exposition of the law... for months they did not do anything.".Chinoy proceeded to highlight that Courts can intervene in such scenarios. "It has been held that the courts of record have the power to punish, to postpone publicity in appropriate cases as preventive measure without disturbing content.... How can media channels destroy reputation, and show they are guilty of an offence? Inform, criticise, consider, but don’t judge, that is kernel."