Allahabad HC Preventing Live Reporting Of Its Hearing Raises Concerns Regarding Freedom Of Press To Cover Court Proceedings

Sparsh Upadhyay, an associate editor with LiveLaw, and the only journalist present in the courtroom posting live updates on Live Law's official Twitter handle from his mobile phone, was asked by a bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal to vacate the court-room with the words, "Aap bahar jakar apni reporting kariye".

This episode raises questions about its broader implications for journalistic freedom and the public's right to be informed about court proceedings, especially in matters that interest and sometimes affect the public at large.

Being one of the pillars of Democracy, the judiciary is tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice, and its proceedings are typically open to the public to maintain transparency and accountability.

However, with the happening of such incidents, the Judiciary risks eroding public trust and accountability by curbing the media's ability to report on its proceedings despite the availability of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press.

It must be underscored that this right of the press or a Journalist is not just a privilege but a fundamental necessity as by providing real-time updates and insights, reporters ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done to the public at large, a principle that is essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system.

However, before moving ahead, let us understand what actually transpired inside the Court-room. The hearing on the PIL plea was conducted in two sessions (pre- and post-lunch). The details of pre- and post-lunch sessions are summarised below:

Pre-lunch Session:

The bench presided at 10:15 AM sharp. The petition was at item no. 18. The hearing in the matter commenced at approximately 12:19 PM. The courtroom was about 70% full, predominantly occupied with lawyers 9and their clerks and a few interns) awaiting their matters. The reporter, standing near a three-seater bench (placed on the right side of the Court) meant for interns and advocate clerks, was live-tweeting the proceedings.

During this session, the court primarily focused on Advocate Ashok Pandey, who represented the PIL petitioner, Mr. Vignesh Shishira. The court questioned why Pandey had not filed a Demand Draft (DD) of ₹25,000/—along with the plea, as mandated by a 2016 High Court order.

In this session, the court also reprimanded the petitioner, Mr. Shishira, for standing too close to the counsel near the dais. Though the Court wanted to adjourn the matter for another day, Advocate Pandey insisted that it be heard that day. At his insistence, the Court decided to take up the matter again post-lunch. This session concluded at around 12:46 PM.

Post-lunch Session:

The post-lunch session began at approximately 4:27 PM, two hours after the court reassembled (at 2:30 PM). The court resumed questioning Advocate Pandey, again asking about the 2016 order of the High Court that required him to file a DD of ₹25,000/—with each petition.

Advocate Pandey claimed his right to file petitions during his argument without submitting the required DD.

5 minutes into the hearing, at around 4:32 PM, Justice Alok Mathur directed his attention to the LiveLaw reporter, who had been standing near the three-seater bench and live-tweeting the proceedings. Justice Mathur instructed, "Yeh reporting aap bahar jakar kariye (Do your reporting from outside the court-room)."

The reporter, seeking confirmation, asked if the direction was indeed for him. Justice Mathur affirmed, "Ji aap. Aap bahar jaaiye aur wahan jakar reporting kijiye apni," (Yes, you. Go outside and do your reporting there)"

Following this directive, the reporter left the courtroom. A tweet was posted from the LiveLaw's Twitter handle by the reporter (at around 4:36 PM), stating that the bench had asked the reporter to leave the courtroom.

The post-lunch session lasted approximately 12-15 minutes after the reporter exited the court-room.

It is out of the question that a court holds the absolute authority to expel individuals who disrupt court proceedings. However, in this instance, the reporter was not causing any disturbance that would warrant such action. He was simply posting live updates of the court proceedings on Live Law's Twitter handle from his mobile phone, maintaining a quiet and unobtrusive presence in the courtroom.

The matter assumes greater significance when the Supreme Court has been a staunch advocate of open courts in recent years, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and public access as fundamental principles of judicial proceedings.

The Apex Court has been of the view that the courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in in-camera proceedings, as open access to courts is “essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms”.

One of the most significant steps in this direction was the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India Court (2018) wherein the top Court had cleared the deck for live streaming of cases of national and constitutional importance.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", the bench said while allowing live streaming of court proceedings.

By allowing the public to witness the workings of the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court has opened its doors to greater public participation and understanding of judicial processes.

Apex Court's 'openness to public' was further strengthened by the 2021 Judgment of the highest court in the case of Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar LL 2021 SC 244 in which it was categorically held that the freedom of media to report court proceedings was also a part of the process of augmenting the integrity of the judiciary and the cause of justice as a whole.

In this case, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah had dismissed the Election Commission of India's plea against the oral remarks of Madras High Court that the ECI was "singularly responsible for COVID second wave" and "should probably be booked for murder charges"(Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar).

Rejecting ECI's plea to stop media reporting of oral remarks as lacking in substance, the Court emphasized that media coverage of court hearings was part of freedom of press and it had a bearing on citizens' right to information and also on the accountability of the judiciary.

Importantly, the Top Court had also observed the freedom of media to report court proceedings was also a part of the process of augmenting the integrity of the judiciary and the cause of justice as a whole

The judgment also referred to the new-age developments in court-room reporting, such as live accounts of hearings given on Twitter and other social media platforms.

One is also reminded of a statement made by CJI DY Chandrachud in 2022 when he said that the mindset of judges of High Courts and subordinate judiciary, who do not encourage the use of phones inside the courtrooms, should change.

Justice Chandrachud narrated an incident in which he found someone recording what was being said in his courtroom. He remarked that instead of taking the traditional view on the issue, he reflected that if something is being said in open court, then there is no harm in recording it.

"Yesterday, I saw someone in my court using a mobile device, possibly recording what we were saying. I said (to myself), if I am saying something in open court and if somebody wants to record it, what is the big deal? Anyway we are saying it in open court," CJI said.

It may be interesting to note that the reporter who was asked to leave the courtroom by the Allahabad HC today is one of the petitioners in a petition (presently pending before the HC) seeking permission for Live Streaming and Live Reporting of Court proceedings across the State of Uttar Pradesh, including the High Courts, Subordinate Courts, and Tribunals.

Hearing this plea, the Allahabad High Court had, in May 2021, observed that its administrative side was working on all aspects of live streaming and live reporting of Court proceedings for wider public access.

"No one is disputing your right. They're working on all the aspects of the matter, we have to give them some time," a Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Jayant Banerji had said.

In a similar petition before Madhya Pradesh, in which two reporters of LiveLaw (including Nupur Thapliyal and Sparsh Upadhyay) were petitioners, the Court orally remarked in June 2021 that it was “undisputed that journalists have a right to report and access to Court proceedings going live.”

A Division Bench of Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Virender Singh had orally observed that the Journalists' right to live report the court proceedings cannot be disputed.

Later on, within 10 days of the conclusion of arguments in the matter, the MP High Court decided to start sharing VC links on its website while disposing of the plea.

Live reporting from courtrooms enables journalists to provide timely and accurate information, preventing the spread of misinformation and ensuring that the public can access credible news sources.

By restricting a journalist's right to live report court proceedings, the Judiciary would be inadvertently undermining the principles of open justice and the public's right to be informed about the Court proceedings.