MP HC Issues Notice To HC On Plea Seeking Permission To Live Report Court Proceedings

Background

• Four Journalists moved to the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking permission for live streaming and live reporting of the Court proceedings on the grounds of Fundamental Rights to attend, observe, transcribe and report the matters of general public importance.
• The Journalists NupurThapliyal, Sparsh Upadhyay, Areeb Uddin Ahmed, and Rahul Dubey challenged the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020 on the basis that they exclude the third parties from being present at the virtual court proceedings and that causes difficulty to the media in reporting the matters.
• Under these rules, only the advocates representing the parties are permitted and any other person who doesn’t fall under the definition of a required person or someone who has no direct relationship with the case is not permitted.
• According to rule 16 of the impugned rules, the third party will only be allowed to remain present in the court proceedings upon specific order of the court.

Submissions by the Journalists

• The Journalists stated that they were required to join the virtual court proceedings using pseudonyms because if they would specify their real name and when the court or technical staff would come to know of it, they would immediately be disconnected.
• They also said that they always fear adverse action being taken against them for attending the proceedings in an unauthorized manner.
• The petitioner further averred that if they aren’t allowed in the court proceedings, they won’t be able to cover the judgments, orders, outcomes, and arguments of the advocates during the hearing.
• The counsel for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta also argued that the Journalists, have a right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India to report the proceedings of the Court. It was also argued that live reporting is not prohibited anywhere else in the country.
• He referred to the case of Swapnil Tripathi and Ors. Vs Supreme Court of India and Ors. Where the Supreme Court decided to live stream the court proceedings in the public interest.

Court’s Observations

• The Court observed that the main outcome of proceeding i.e. order or judgment is already in public view. However, the Court also asked why oral observations that do not form the Court’s order should be reported? To this, the Senior Advocate replied that in Election Commissioner of India vs. M. R. Vijaybhaskar and Ors. 2021, the Supreme Court allowed live reporting of Court proceedings.
• The Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and G. S. Ahluwalia observed that the petitioners have arguable point.
• It was observed by Justice Sheel Nagu that Court proceedings should be open in the public interest as far as the question of the court being open for public view is considered. Unless the person is causing a nuisance, the court should be open for all.
• The matter is listed to be heard on June 9, 2021.

What do you think the Journalists should be allowed in the virtual court proceedings?