The Press Is The Most Powerful Watchdog Of Public Interest In A Democracy: Bombay HC While Quashing Media Gag Order In Sohrabuddin Case [Read Order]

As reported earlier, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the media gag order by special CBI judge SJ Sharma dated November 29 and held that subordinate courts did not have such inherent powers to pass such an order.In the 39-page judgment published yesterday on the high court website, Justice Revati Mohite Dere held that it is only the ‘courts of record’, i.e., the Supreme Court and high courts that have the inherent jurisdiction to pass postponement orders.Open trial is a rule Senior advocate Mihir Desai appeared for one of the petitioners in the matter and submitted that there are only 3 or 4 contingencies in which a court i.e. ., the Supreme Court and high courts can restrain the media from publication and that too, for a short duration, i.e. (i) when there is a real and imminent danger to a fair trial; (ii) that there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice or to the fairness of trial; and (iii) where reporting by the press would shift the burden of innocence.He further submitted that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, includes freedom of the press and that the same has been recognized as a fundamental right.Advocates Abad Ponda and Abhinav Chandrachud also appeared for one of the group of petitioners and submitted that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing such an order which was illegal and arbitrary.However, Abdul Hafeez, who was appearing for one of the accused in the case, supported the gag order and submitted that the case has a chequered history and there is an apprehension to the lives and safety of witnesses and lawyers.The court then observed: “The language of Section 327 itself indicates that the place where the Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiry and trial of any offence shall be deemed to be an open court. An open trial is the rule and wherever exceptions are carved out, they are made only to secure the ends of justice. Section 327 declares that the place of inquiry and trial of any offence shall be deemed to be an “open court”. The words “open court” used in Section 327 of the Code are significant. Section 327 embodies the principle of public trial.Apart from the question of power of the Sessions Judge to pass the impugned order, it is also necessary to spell out the underlying principles behind an `open trial'. It is one of the salutary principles of the administration of justice, that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done and an `open trial' reaffirms the said principle.Thus, an `open trial' sub serves the ends of justice. It acts as a safeguard for protection of the rights of all i.e. witnesses, accused, etc. and as such ensures fairness of the proceedings. Open trial is the rule and must be scrupulously adhered to, except under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Section 327 recognizes the right to public trial. Closed proceedings foster distrust in the judicial system and hence, proceedings must be open proceedings, as it helps maintain The court also said the right to know flows from the rights of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, i.e. to publish and circulate information.The apex court, in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co & Ors v Union of India & Ors para 31, has observed that although Article 19(1)(a) does not mention the freedom of the press, it is the settled law that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press and circulation.No danger for life of AccusedThe Court has also rejected the contention of some accused regarding the fear of their lives. The Court said;"Although, some of the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they feared for their lives and for the lives of the accused or apprehend some untoward incident, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same, except bare words made across the bar. Similarly, how national security would be affected, if media is permitted to report, the proceedings, is in the realm of speculation, without any basis. Thus, the apprehensions expressed are not such that they do not show real and substantial risk of prejudice being caused to the accused or a clear and present danger to a fair trial. In fact, the record shows that till date, almost 15 accused have been discharged from the said case and as such the apprehension is misplaced and unjustified".PIL on Death of Judge Loya In SCIt is also urged that the matter be deferred, as the Apex Court was hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in connection with the death of a former Judge dealing with the said case and that one of the reasons given for banning the media from publication was the manner in which the death of the said Judge was distorted. To this the Court replied as follows;"Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently opposed the deferring of these petitions and submitted that the said petitions had no bearing with the PILs pending...

The Press Is The Most Powerful Watchdog Of Public Interest In A Democracy: Bombay HC While Quashing Media Gag Order In Sohrabuddin Case [Read Order]

nitish kashyap

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

nitish kashyap

The Press Is The Most Powerful Watchdog Of Public Interest In A Democracy: Bombay HC While Quashing Media Gag Order In Sohrabuddin Case [Read Order]

nitish kashyap

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

nitish kashyap

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers