The Supreme Court media accreditation panel hit national headlines in September 2015 when it criticized the practice of legal correspondents taking notes by the side of the judge’s seat.
I had rejected the panel’s criticism, saying that the reporters were forced to get close to the judge so as to write down the oral observations clearly and accurately in a crowded court room.
In fact, judges in the Supreme Court have never barred journalists from getting closer. The Supreme Court has explained the legal principles against attempts to regulate the media in the Sahara case in 2012 and the Subramanian Swamy case in 2016. The people themselves are getting closer to the courts through the reporters.
However, the common man and journalists have to pass several hurdles before they can enter court rooms and witness the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
As lawyer-writer Gautham Bhatia said, the situation where a person cannot enter the Supreme Court hall and witness a case of public interest unless he is a party to the case, is a negation of our democratic civil rights.
Accreditation norms for journalists are often brought up in discussions related to the freedom of media.
Authorities have justified the regulations, citing a lack of facilities in the Supreme Court and the high number of reporters and visitors to the court.
The Kerala High Court, however, had gone by a different pattern. Ordinary people and reporters could get into court rooms subject to security checks, reflecting Kerala’s unique model in the administration of justice.
The late T P Kelu Nambiar even wrote an article to seek facilities for ordinary people to witness court proceedings in the new Kerala High Court building.
On November 10, judges in the Kerala High Court approved the norms for accreditation of legal correspondents.
Section 4 of these guidelines says any journalist who desires to report High Court proceedings may be eligible to be considered for regular accreditation. The same rule makes it mandatory for legal correspondents to possess a law degree and minimum reporting experience.
Section 5, which is related to temporary accreditation, also has similar conditions.
In short, veteran reporters would not get accreditation if they did not have a law degree. Even accredited journalists can only work subject to conditions and controls. Accreditation is essential for getting an identity card, free copies of the judgments and orders.
More over, section 8(c) puts forward more conditions for reporters who have received accreditation. An accredited legal correspondent shall make only a true and correct reporting of court proceedings/orders/judgments, without any distortion and embellishment, it reads.
Having a law degree does not make anyone a better legal correspondent. Many excellent reports have been produced by journalists with no law degree. It is important that media houses retain the freedom to choose their correspondents and fix their eligibility. Great minds should make everyone feel that no one is left out.
Our laws have sufficient provisions to take action against any news report that is false, defamatory or in contempt of court.
New regulations do not send out a positive message. Section 8(c) which warns against embellishments is strange. I cannot understand how certain rules can evaluate the language style and choice of words of a reporter.
There is no doubt that we have to correct the stooping standards in a section of media and a lack of professionalism amid a few journalists. The people, and even the media, are in favor of that. However, regulations should not be imposed externally, but has to come from within, as the Supreme Court said in the Sahara case.
Let us not forget the Case of the Dean of St Asaph in the 18th century, when the court described the freedom of speech as the right to print subject only to general laws and without prior restraints.
(The writer is an advocate in the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court)