2012 (9) TMI 374 - SC - Indian Laws

Disclosure to the Media was by SEBI in breach of confidentiality - Directions with regard to reporting of matters (in electronic and print media) which are sub judice - whether Postponement orders constitute restriction under Article 19(1)(a) and whether such restriction is saved under Article 19(2)? - Held that - Anyone, be he an accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends on the basis of the content of the publication and its effect, an infringement of his/ her rights under Article 21 to a fair trial and all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach an appropriate writ court and seek an order of postponement of the offending publication/ broadcast or postponement of reporting of certain phases of the trial (including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant), and that the court may grant such preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to a fair trial and Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the principles of necessity and proportionality and keeping in mind that such orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial. Such neutralizing device (balancing test) would not be an unreasonable restriction and on the contrary would fall within the proper constitutional framework. Exhaustively referring to the contents of the IAs filed by Sahara and SEBI the right to negotiate and settle in confidence is a right of a citizen and has been equated to a right of the accused to defend himself in a criminal trial. In this case, Sahara has complained to this Court on the basis of breach of confidentiality by the Media. In the circumstances, it cannot be contended that there was no lis. Sahara, therefore, contended that this Court should frame guidelines or give directions which are advisory or self-regulatory whereas SEBI contended that the guidelines/directions should be given by this Court which do not have to be coercive. In the circumstances, constitutional adjudication on the above points was required and it cannot be said that there was no lis between the parties. As right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment in US is absolute which is not so under Indian Constitution in view of such right getting restricted by the test of reasonableness and in view of the Heads of Restrictions under Article 19(2). Thus, the clash model is more suitable to American Constitution rather than Indian or Canadian jurisprudence, since First Amendment has no equivalent of Article 19(2) or Section 1 of the Canadian Charter.In this case, this Court is only declaring under Article 141, the constitutional limitations on free speech under Article 19(1)(a), in the context of Article 21. The exercise undertaken by this Court is an exercise of exposition of constitutional limitations under Article 141 read with Article 129/Article 215. When the content of rights is considered by this Court, the Court has also to consider the enforcement of the rights as well as the remedies available for such enforcement. In the circumstances, we have expounded the constitutional limitations on free speech under Article 19(1)(a) in the context of Article 21 and under Article 141 read with Article 129/Article 215 which preserves the inherent jurisdiction of the Courts of Record in relation to contempt law - what constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on case to case basis. Hence, guidelines on reporting cannot be framed across the Board.

Issues Involved:
1. Balancing free press and administration of justice.
2. Confidentiality of inter-party communications.
3. Media reporting on sub-judice matters.
4. Constitutional limitations on free speech under Article 19(1)(a) in relation to Article 21.
5. Guidelines for media reporting on judicial proceedings.
6. Jurisdiction and powers of Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215.
7. Contempt of Court and its implications on media reporting.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Balancing Free Press and Administration of Justice:
The judgment addresses the challenge of finding an acceptable constitutional balance between free press and administration of justice. The court acknowledges that this balance is difficult to achieve in any legal system.

2. Confidentiality of Inter-Party Communications:
The factual background reveals that Sahara filed IAs alleging that SEBI breached confidentiality by disclosing proposals to the media. The court noted that such incidents interfere with the administration of justice and requested both parties to file written applications to address the issue.

3. Media Reporting on Sub-Judice Matters:
Sahara contended that media reporting on sub-judice matters should be restricted to prevent prejudice to judicial proceedings. The court discussed the principle of open justice and acknowledged that excessive media publicity could interfere with the administration of justice.

4. Constitutional Limitations on Free Speech Under Article 19(1)(a) in Relation to Article 21:
The court examined the constitutional limitations on free speech, emphasizing that freedom of expression is not absolute and must be balanced against other important values, such as the right to a fair trial. The court highlighted that Article 19(1)(a) rights could be restricted under Article 19(2) to prevent interference with the administration of justice.

5. Guidelines for Media Reporting on Judicial Proceedings:
The court discussed the need for guidelines on media reporting to balance the right to free speech with the right to a fair trial. It emphasized that any restriction on media reporting should be based on the principle of necessity and proportionality and should be for a limited duration.

6. Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts of Record Under Articles 129 and 215:
The court reiterated that the Supreme Court and High Courts, as Courts of Record, have inherent powers under Articles 129 and 215 to issue orders of postponement of publication to prevent prejudice to judicial proceedings. These powers are preserved under the Constitution and are necessary to protect the administration of justice.

7. Contempt of Court and Its Implications on Media Reporting:
The court discussed the law of contempt, emphasizing that it is an offence sui generis aimed at protecting the administration of justice. The court noted that contempt jurisdiction includes the power to prevent acts that interfere with the course of justice, including excessive prejudicial publicity by the media.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of IA Nos. 4-5 and 10, emphasizing the need for balancing free speech with the right to a fair trial. It highlighted the inherent powers of Courts of Record to issue postponement orders to prevent prejudice to judicial proceedings. The court did not express an opinion on the merits of other IAs, which were consequently dismissed.

← Previous Next →