SC told that self-regulation is preferable alternative Shanti Bhushan asks for Bench to be dissolved on Day 5 of arguments on media guidelines matter

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was told that self-regulation was the preferred alternative to statutory regulation. Opposition to the framing of guidelines found its strongest supporter in the Senior Counsel Shanti Bhushan who argued that the Constitutional Bench ought to be dissolved and that fetters should not be placed on the freedom of the press..The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was told that self-regulation was the preferred alternative to statutory regulation. Opposition to the framing of guidelines found its strongest supporter in the Senior Counsel Shanti Bhushan who argued that the Constitutional Bench ought to be dissolved since it did not serve any purpose..As reported in The Hindu, the Press Council of India (PCI) informed the Apex Court that it would be more desirable to lay down guidelines for both print and electronic media rather than framing statutory rules. Senior Advocate PP Rao, appearing for the PCI, informed the Court that self-regulation is a much preferred option as compared to statutory regulation..Anil Divan, the Senior Counsel representing The Hindu’s editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, said that the Court had embarked on a “quasi-legislative exercise” which could have harmful consequences..But perhaps the most vociferous criticism came from Senior Advocate and former Law Minister, Shanti Bhushan. Bhushan was appearing on behalf of an intervener and asked the CJI to dissolve the Bench since “No purpose will be solved by going through this exercise.” As reported by the Times of India Bhushan argued that the imposition of such guidelines would impede democracy itself. “It is the media reporting which keeps people informed about justice delivery system….. Is it the apprehension of the Apex Court that media reports influence our trained judges? If not, then framing guidelines is meaningless……… Should people stop talking about it? Should people be not informed about it?” he is reported to have asked the Constitutional Bench..It appears that these arguments were considered by the Bench, since the Bench passed an order declaring that the interveners would be heard only on the following points:.Whether there should be guidelines? If so, whether these guidelines should be self-regulatory as far as the Press is concerned?; andWhat are the contours of the rights of the accused, witnesses and victims to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution; what are the contours of the concept of “Administration of Justice” and of the “Freedom of Press” under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?.The arguments are expected to continue today as well.