“Pillar meant to support the building should strengthen it, not destroy it”, P Velmurugan J. on Media

Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court yesterday broached the topic of media trial and media sensationalism as he urged the fourth estate to exercise restraint in publishing details regarding an ongoing case..The case in question relates to a petition filed by a DMK party member contesting the genuineness of the fingerprint of former Chief Minister, late J Jayalalithaa granting permission to AIADMK nominees to contest in the bypolls last year certain Assembly constituencies. The case was posted yesterday to hear the deposition by Dr. P Balaji, who had verified the fingerprints..During the course of hearing, the court made it a point to emphasise that the media should not publish any details regarding the questions posed and the responses made by the witness, but should confine to reporting the fact of the deposition alone. He remarked that a pillar meant to support the building should strengthen it, not destroy it instead. Observing that media trial should be avoided, the judge said that as the fourth estate, the media should keep in mind their responsibility to protect the Constitution..In doing so, the court appears to have echoed sentiments of the special bench order in the Sahara case. By this order, the Supreme Court had held that courts have powers to order deferment of media broadcasts when it would be prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Court had, however, stopped short of enumerating exhaustive guidelines for court reporting or detailing the scenarios where such deferment would be justified. The need for imposing such restraint would depend on factors such as,.“…as extent of prejudice, the effect on individuals involved in the case, the over-riding necessity to curb the right to report judicial proceedings conferred on the media under Article 19(1)(a) and the right of the media to challenge the order of postponement…”.Prior to the Sahara case, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar’s case had also taken the position that the principle of open justice is not absolute and there can be exceptions in the interest of administration of justice..The observations by Justice Velmurugan come at a time when the Delhi High Court is exploring the possibility of framing guidelines to regulate reporting of court proceedings..Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App