Degree of justice

The Supreme Court has changed the norms for correspondents who cover it. In a move that is both restrictive and arbitrary,the countrys highest court has decided that only those reporters who have a law degree and seven years of experience covering court proceedings can get a permanent or a temporary accreditation. This means the majority of legal correspondents will lose the stamp of recognition that gives them easy access to judgments and orders. That is,of course,an essential aspect of their job and their job is an essential cog in the mechanism of justice,through which the Supreme Court has time and again corrected and steadied the ship of state.

An open court rests on the belief that justice should not just be delivered but also be seen to be delivered. Restricting that hallowed space to anyone,including legal correspondents who convey the import of observations and judgments,shorn of the heavy,forbidding legalese,does not sit right with the times when transparency is a legitimate demand and a rallying cry. The justices anguish is completely understandable: the law can be a tangle,and misreporting might well happen. Yet,extending their lordships logic would imply that health correspondents be required to have a medical degree,and business journalists an honours in economics. Ensuring fair and honest reporting in this,as in other fields,is and should be the responsibility of the media.

More worryingly,the Chief Justice of India can withdraw an accreditation without assigning any reason. Interestingly,the Supreme Court has,regularly and honourably,pointed out to lower courts that petitions should not be dismissed without specifying reasons without,at least,speaking orders. We have come to think of Indias highest court as its greatest repository of justice,and our eyes are forever turned towards it. Its doors should not be shut to anyone.