Fundamental right

The court has been bothered,justifiably,by the occasional misinterpreting of legal matters in the media or coverage of a case that may be seen as interfering with a defendant’s right to a free trial. But the court itself can tackle this case by case: whether the hearing should be in-camera or whether the evidence should remain in sealed cover,for example. The option of prior restraint via guidelines for reporting is the sledgehammer option. It will strike at the very heart of the freedoms the court has underlined and upheld. This will not only hurt the media,it will also damage the court — as many constitutional experts have now underlined. Senior jurist Fali Nariman,who himself brought the issue to court and suggested normative guidelines,was taken aback at the bench’s eagerness to formulate “principles” for the media. As he pointed out,it may be straying into the legislature’s domain by attempting to enact a law. Indeed,it can be argued that an attempt to abridge press freedom by mandating a code of behaviour violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

Even a hint that the court could withdraw its protection is dangerous,and could allow other forces to rush in. Just read Congress MP Meenakshi Natarajan’s media-gagging bill — it provides a glimpse of how fragile our freedoms could look if the court lowers its guard. Besides,when framing the bounds within which media may operate,the court will bump up against the question of how to define a “journalist”. Thanks to technology,every citizen can — and has the right to — publish or broadcast news,views and all that lies in between. Surely,there cannot be a code of guidelines for 1 billion plus people. As the court ponders the issue,it should not allow instances of bad journalism to undermine its enduring,liberal affirmation of free expression.