Well, the question would aptly sum up the objectives of the workshop on reporting of court proceedings by media and administration of justice being organized by the National Legal Services Authority, Supreme Court Legal Services Commmittee, Indian Law Institute, Press Council of India, and Editors Guild of India in New Delhi today and tomorrow.

Although it is intended to be a dialogue between what one called two “natural allies” in the context of growing criminalization of politics (as if the media and judiciary are the only two hallowed institutions and that they should join hands in the face of a common adversary, called politics), the thrust of the workshop clearly appeared to provide an opportunity to the Judiciary –which initiated it – to teach the media. In this endeavour, the non-legal background of most legal journalists (including the so-called court accredited ones with law degrees) was a blessing in disguise for the Judiciary which fielded some very basic questions from the media concerning court functioning and writing of judgments with alacrity. In this post, I intend to highlight certain exchanges among the Judges, senior advocates and the media which struck me.

Justice S.H.Kapadia set the tone of the discussion, by stating that legal literacy is the only solution to correct reporting of court proceedings by media. As Judges speak only through their judgments, they have no opportunity to respond and, therefore, media needs to maintain fairness and accuracy, he said. According to him, the objectivity standard cannot apply to court reporting, because the Judiciary cannot respond to criticism in the Press.

The alternative standard of fairness and accuracy proceeds on the basis that “bias” is implicit in reporting, and seeks to minimize it. This standard, he said, must be based on concept of balance and neutrality. The editor, he said, must not ask “Do I like this story”,but rather “does this story, in my best judgment, serve the general purpose or function?”. His concluding remark, “Let us all be seekers of truth rather than finders of fault” invited a retort from H.K.Dua, editor-in-chief of Tribune that fault-finding is also truth-seeking.

To Justice G.N.Ray, Chairman Press Council of India, fair trial and freedom of press, if ever they are at conflict with each other, must be resolved in favour of the former.

It was Justice V.S.Sirpurkar who became the darling of the media, by his open invitation to them to come to his room, if they have any queries on his judgments, or observations in the court. “I will make a comment in the court room, only if I can defend myself, not otherwise”, was his cryptic remark, when journalists referred to Justice B.N.Agarwal’s angry remark in the court that the Court would not hesitate to recommend President’s rule in Tamil Nadu, if the State went ahead with its bandh on the question of Supreme Court’s interference in the Sethusamudram Project, by staying work on the Adam’s Bridge.

Justice Sirpurkar said he has no objections to even televising the court proceedings, but the issue is an administrative one, and therefore, is not in his hands. When journalists pointed out that some judgments are confusing (one journo referred to the confusion caused by the Court’s judgment on whether Jainism is part of Hinduism; he said he did not go ahead with his story because of two confusing paragraphs, and two contradictory reports in two Hindi newspapers), he advised them to contact the Judges who wrote the Judgments and seek clarity, or speak to the lawyers who argued in that case.

Reading materials circulated among the participants at the workshop had some annexures showing recent examples of “bad” reporting, and how the Court viewed them. Examples:

On the judgment on live-in relationship:

The thrust of the decision is not legitimacy of live-in relationship. It is a decision based on the age-old public policy against bastardization of children and breaking up of families. The decision is also on the basis of equality. The press could have done well had it discussed the law and wondered as to the fallout of the decision.

On Justice B.N.Agarwal’s outburst over dismissing TN Govt:

Confronted by a submission that its orders for maintaining law and order were being ignored the Judges must have reacted pointing out the possibilities for coercing the Government to comply with its orders. The Court’s remarks were highlighted out of proportion giving an impression that it was threatening to take action against the Government. It would have been nice if these remarks were not reported.

In fact, every Judge who spoke at the workshop revealed his discomfort over the media reporting utterances/observations of Judges during the Court proceedings – even if they are newsworthy, because such observations do not reveal anything, not the least of the Judges’ intentions to make such remarks, and they make such observations just to provoke the counsel, to elicit their views. It appeared to me, that the Judges seek to deprive the source of livelihood of many Journalists who cover the Courts. Why sit through the hearing of the important sensitive cases, if they are not to report what is said by the Judges?

If court reporting is just culling out the operative parts of the judgments and summing of the arguments of respective parties as carried in their written affidavits, (in any case the bulk of the media is not interested in the reasoning and the various legal nuances of the arguments), most legal journalists would lose their jobs, as the same can be done without visiting the Court. The explanation offered by some journalists that they write their reports by adding that these remarks were just observations, and not binding legal orders, did not appear to convince the Judges, who believed they are not even observations, but questions intended to elicit answers to clear their doubts, and as such, reporting the off-the-cuff remarks and giving them sensational headlines is just misreporting.