At first blush, the All India Bar Association's demand that the Supreme Court initiate contempt proceedings against Tamil news channel Thanthi seems legitimate. Surely, the channel's October 18 broadcast of Fali Nariman's arguments during Tamil politician Jayalalithaa's bail hearing were motivated by the urge to generate greater TRPs. After all, Indian courts do not allow cameras to record their proceedings and there seems to have been some subterfuge involved in obtaining the footage.
Still, instead blaming the channel for indulging in sensationalism, it would be more worthwhile to remember advocate Rajeev Dhavan's words during a trial in 2012: "There can be no sensational judicial answer to sensational media reports. The judicial answer has to be sober.”
Taking a leaf out of Dhavan's book, it would be beneficial if the Bar Association’s demand is used to revive a debate that has been stuck in the Bombay High Court since 2011. On September 26 that year, the court rejected petitioner Inder Chugani's application to allow videographing of important proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court, especially those involving high political and constitutional functionaries as parties. This, Chugani had contended, was essential if the people's right to participate in democracy is to be fully realised.
Some apprehensions
But Nijamoddin Jamdar, who was then Registrar (Legal and Research), had voiced a number of apprehensions.
Foremost among them was that this would result in a "trial by media" ‒ that in the rush for grabbing a bigger share of readership and viewership, papers and television channels would show only sections of the proceedings that fit the story they wanted to tell. This would inevitably obstruct the course of justice. He quoted the Law Commission's 200th report (2006) which found that judges were no more immune to sensationalist and slanted media reportage than a layperson.
Namdar was also afraid that if a final judgement didn't go along the lines of what the bench said and observed during the course of hearings, the media would reach fervid conjectures and impute motives to judges, which would deal a severe blow to the judiciary's credibility. He was no less wary of possible showboating by both judges and lawyers.
While he raised valid concerns, it’s valuable to bear some facts in mind.
True democracy
To begin with, no one is demanding that all proceedings be televised, so there's no possibility of a repeat of the media circus which almost derailed the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in the US. But unless the public is allowed to witness justice being done in important cases, the judiciary is curtailing their full participation in every aspect of the democratic process of electing representatives and being cognisant of their performances and foibles.
It cannot be argued that concern for protecting the solemn majesty of the law is preventing our Supreme Court from adapting the practices of its British and Brazilian counterparts. Since November, the Supreme Court of England and Wales has allowed its proceedings to be broadcast. Brazil does even better. Since 2002, its apex court has made each judicial and administrative proceeding available through its own television and radio channels.
Some fear that theatrical justice will corrode people's faith in the judiciary. But its far more likely that trust in the courts will be undermined by their zealous pursuit of secrecy.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Still, instead blaming the channel for indulging in sensationalism, it would be more worthwhile to remember advocate Rajeev Dhavan's words during a trial in 2012: "There can be no sensational judicial answer to sensational media reports. The judicial answer has to be sober.”
Taking a leaf out of Dhavan's book, it would be beneficial if the Bar Association’s demand is used to revive a debate that has been stuck in the Bombay High Court since 2011. On September 26 that year, the court rejected petitioner Inder Chugani's application to allow videographing of important proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court, especially those involving high political and constitutional functionaries as parties. This, Chugani had contended, was essential if the people's right to participate in democracy is to be fully realised.
Some apprehensions
But Nijamoddin Jamdar, who was then Registrar (Legal and Research), had voiced a number of apprehensions.
Foremost among them was that this would result in a "trial by media" ‒ that in the rush for grabbing a bigger share of readership and viewership, papers and television channels would show only sections of the proceedings that fit the story they wanted to tell. This would inevitably obstruct the course of justice. He quoted the Law Commission's 200th report (2006) which found that judges were no more immune to sensationalist and slanted media reportage than a layperson.
Namdar was also afraid that if a final judgement didn't go along the lines of what the bench said and observed during the course of hearings, the media would reach fervid conjectures and impute motives to judges, which would deal a severe blow to the judiciary's credibility. He was no less wary of possible showboating by both judges and lawyers.
While he raised valid concerns, it’s valuable to bear some facts in mind.
True democracy
To begin with, no one is demanding that all proceedings be televised, so there's no possibility of a repeat of the media circus which almost derailed the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in the US. But unless the public is allowed to witness justice being done in important cases, the judiciary is curtailing their full participation in every aspect of the democratic process of electing representatives and being cognisant of their performances and foibles.
It cannot be argued that concern for protecting the solemn majesty of the law is preventing our Supreme Court from adapting the practices of its British and Brazilian counterparts. Since November, the Supreme Court of England and Wales has allowed its proceedings to be broadcast. Brazil does even better. Since 2002, its apex court has made each judicial and administrative proceeding available through its own television and radio channels.
Some fear that theatrical justice will corrode people's faith in the judiciary. But its far more likely that trust in the courts will be undermined by their zealous pursuit of secrecy.