Supreme Court has said that the higher judiciary could
impose a freeze on media coverage if it was felt that reporting a case would
harm the right of the accused for a fair trail.
Some feel that these have been proposed to control media;
they have been laid down for media only regarding court cases. A court order
can post pone reporting of cases for a limited time, only. When the trail is
over it can be reported.
The reason given is that this will protect the victim. Sometimes the media moulds the public opinion in such a way that the victim is harmed. Actually, the accused get protected (instead), by postponement of reporting subjudice issues with grave consequences.Now the victims are left to fend for themselves in fighting for their rights and media cannot help them as it had always done.Many court cases have been solved by stint operations done by media personnel.Who will now ask questions about sloppy investigation procedures? Who can check political interference? Who can go deeply into details and find out about key witnesses and what they are trying to hide?Recently a lawyer was trying to make a witness lie and this was caught by the media.Now there will be few convictions, no one is there to help the poor victims.The orders of postponement of reporting would be passed only when necessary to prevent and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial or the court proceedings. This will not harm our freedom of expression. Reporters of media have right to appeal against postponement orders.
This is meant to give the persons under trail less exposure. Unnecessary exposure to media has the potential to prejudice or obstruct or interfere with administration of justice in a case in Supreme Court or High Court. There are two rights here—right to dignity and the right to presumption of innocence—guaranteed under Article 21. And there is Article 19 to freedom of speech which will give way, as it is not an absolute right. Is not the Right to open trail is an absolute right?
This is meant to give powers to the courts to prohibit to make any statements which would be detrimental to the judicial process.But the media actually aids the investigative process. The recent exposure of the Minister who had killed many during riots(10 years ago) was possible because of pressmen. No attention was paid to the waitress who had refused to serve drinks after the restaurant timings were over, she was shot and killed.Media went on pursuing this and ultimately, the courts took up the case. Poor quality investigations by police and sinister intentions to cover-up issues are exposed by the media men.This is actually an indirect censorship in a crucial place--the court.
Just when we were hoping that trails would be telecast live,in this modern age, this comes as a step backwards. Such interpretations and laws would not give way to modernization of our court systems as anticipated.
The reason given is that this will protect the victim. Sometimes the media moulds the public opinion in such a way that the victim is harmed. Actually, the accused get protected (instead), by postponement of reporting subjudice issues with grave consequences.Now the victims are left to fend for themselves in fighting for their rights and media cannot help them as it had always done.Many court cases have been solved by stint operations done by media personnel.Who will now ask questions about sloppy investigation procedures? Who can check political interference? Who can go deeply into details and find out about key witnesses and what they are trying to hide?Recently a lawyer was trying to make a witness lie and this was caught by the media.Now there will be few convictions, no one is there to help the poor victims.The orders of postponement of reporting would be passed only when necessary to prevent and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial or the court proceedings. This will not harm our freedom of expression. Reporters of media have right to appeal against postponement orders.
This is meant to give the persons under trail less exposure. Unnecessary exposure to media has the potential to prejudice or obstruct or interfere with administration of justice in a case in Supreme Court or High Court. There are two rights here—right to dignity and the right to presumption of innocence—guaranteed under Article 21. And there is Article 19 to freedom of speech which will give way, as it is not an absolute right. Is not the Right to open trail is an absolute right?
This is meant to give powers to the courts to prohibit to make any statements which would be detrimental to the judicial process.But the media actually aids the investigative process. The recent exposure of the Minister who had killed many during riots(10 years ago) was possible because of pressmen. No attention was paid to the waitress who had refused to serve drinks after the restaurant timings were over, she was shot and killed.Media went on pursuing this and ultimately, the courts took up the case. Poor quality investigations by police and sinister intentions to cover-up issues are exposed by the media men.This is actually an indirect censorship in a crucial place--the court.
Just when we were hoping that trails would be telecast live,in this modern age, this comes as a step backwards. Such interpretations and laws would not give way to modernization of our court systems as anticipated.
No comments:
Post a Comment