The Bombay High Court on Thursday was urged to issue guidelines for the media to follow while reporting on criminal investigations and sub-judice matters so that they do not end up 'pre-judging' under the pretext of reporting..Arguments to this effect were made by Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, appearing for Mahesh Narayan Singh and others, some of the PIL petitioners who have moved the High Court against the media trial of the Sushant Singh Rajput case..The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni took up the matter this evening. .While he raised grievance over the media's conduct while reporting on the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, Chinoy clarified,."That media should not report on investigation or subjudice matters is not my contention. It is the manner in which they cover the content.".He submitted that the issue at hand was two fold:1. That all news channels are not members of Broadcasting Associations, for the guidelines of the Associations to apply to them (because the association is a voluntary association).2. And even for the ones who are members, the guidelines are toothless. "For the past 3 months they have done nothing, taken no action." he said..Chinoy listed out instances before the Court to argue that the media has consistently tried to induce the viewer against some person or the investigating body and/or meddle with the investigation being carried out.."You create a perception of guilt, at a stage where it is not established and where the investigation is not going on."Aspi Chinoy.He argued that while reporting or broadcasting of a criminal proceeding, utmost care should be taken by the channel to ensure that they do not suggest who should be arrested or who is guilty.."It is not just against the Fundamental rights but also a contempt. When reporting and commenting, if you pre-judge, you cross a line."Chinoy submitted.The Court enquired if the guidelines sought in the plea may interfere with the citizens' Right to Know..Chinoy quickly retorted that the plea was in no way objecting to the investigative journalism. Rather, the plea was only against pre-judging in an ongoing investigation, thereby inducing the viewer, he said."This is the minimal level of justice required". he added..To further buttress his case, Chinoy referred to judgments of the Supreme Court, containing observations pertaining to media trials. In this regard, he referred to the judgments in RK Anand's case and In re. PC Sen..For the sake of an alternative argument, he asked the Court to consider what happens if the claims made by the media are proved false subsequently. ."When the report comes that it is suicide and not homicide, then what happens to the arrest hashtags?"Chinoy queried..He called upon the news channels to answer if they were going to retract their telecasted content if their news was proved incorrect..Advocate Nisha Bhambani, appearing for the News Broadcasting Association intervened in between to invite the Court's attention to orders which were passed by the News Broadcasting Standards Authority which had asked some news channels to apologise..Chinoy reiterated that since not every news channel is a part of the Association, the news channel who are not members will not pay heed to such actions..Advocate Malvika Trivedi, appearing for a news channel, also interjected during Chinoy's arguments briefly, submitting:That the arguments Chinoy was making were not in support of his petition. His petition was filed by the officers from the Mumbai Police who had objected to the manner in which they were maligned by the news channels. That the Petitioners cannot seek a media gag order, as there will be a chilling effect. She pointed out that there are checks and balances to be kept in mind..The Court, however, pointed out that Chinoy is not seeking a gag order. "He is submitting that the media cannot intervene into investigations or declare who is guilty who is not" the Bench added..After Chinoy finished his arguments, the Court asked the other petitioners to continue their arguments and submissions in the next hearing. Following this, the respondents would make their arguments..The Court has also directed Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh to place on record any new evidence that the Union of India may want to place by Monday. All other Advocates were also allowed to complete their pleadings by Monday..The Court had earlier directed the media to show some restraint when covering news pertaining to the investigation into the death of Sushant Singh Rajput, remarking that the media reportage should not hamper the probe. .The matter has been adjourned to Monday, October 12 at 3 pm for final hearing.