Journalists Expected To Know That Reproductions Of Ongoing Trials Isn't Permitted: Bombay High Court
Issuing notice to Udaipur-based newspaper, the Udaipur Times, for its impermissible reporting of the actual trial related to the Dawoodi Bohra community, the Bombay High Court on Monday observed: "As a general rule, reproductions of ongoing trials are not permitted and every journalist knows this or is expected to know this." The Bench of Justice Gautam Patel was hearing...
Issuing notice to Udaipur-based newspaper, the Udaipur Times, for its impermissible reporting of the actual trial related to the Dawoodi Bohra community, the Bombay High Court on Monday observed:
"As a general rule, reproductions of ongoing trials are not permitted and every journalist knows this or is expected to know this."
The Bench of Justice Gautam Patel was hearing an Interim Application filed by Defendant in a case related to the Dawoodi Bohra community alleging that the plaintiff made it possible for the Newspaper to access Court proceedings, which was thereafter, reported by it.
The Court observed that The Udaipur Times had much to answer for and that it did not know how it gained access and to what it gained access, or when.
Justice Patel noted that he did permit reporters to attend the online hearings and cross-examination session, however the same was subject to some well-known restrictions.
There was a requirement, the Court stressed, that every reporter had to identify himself or herself by name and the name of the publication.
"I do not know if the Udaipur Times did that. Even if the transcripts are not online, orders of this Court most certainly are," said the Court.
The Court further said:
"The Udaipur Times, prima facie, could not have been unaware of these restrictions. If it obtained the transcripts from the Plaintiff or somebody on behalf of the Plaintiff, then that is indeed very serious. If one of its reporters had joined the Court proceedings online and took down portions of the cross-examination verbatim, then that is no less serious."
The Court further observed that there have been other newspaper reporters in Court and so far, at least as far as we are aware, not one has gone to this extent.
The Court noted that in this matter, there were specific protocols in addition because of the deep interest and concern of the Dawoodi Bohra community and that is all the more reason the Udaipur Times ought to have been more circumspect.
The Bench of Justice G. S. Patel also observed that The Udaipur Times's news reports had editorial comments on the cross-examination itself, including comments about Mr Chagla, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant, and even some comments about me as the Judge presiding over the trial.
However, the Court did not opine as to whether the newspaper was provided this material (viz., transcripts of the cross-examinations) or one of its reporters was present at the cross-examinations, which were being conducted online, and took down and then reproduced bits and pieces of the questions and answers.
"The result is the same — an entirely impermissible reporting of the actual trial before it is complete," the Court said.
Read Order