The attack on journalists at the Patiala House court complex on Monday before the hearing of the sedition case against Jawaharlal Nehru University students' union president Kanhaiya Kumar was unprecedented. But the Supreme Court order imposing restrictions on journalists covering Kumar’s remand proceedings on Wednesday only makes matters worse.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court spoke out against the violence and directed the Delhi Police to protect JNU students, teachers and journalists and to maintain law and order. But in a puzzling move, the bench decided to allow only five journalists, four relatives of Kumar (identified by him) or two of Kumar’s supporters, and six lawyers inside the courtroom. The court cited “restraints of space in the court hall” as a reason for the restrictions.
Surely, there are a lot more than five reporters interested in this case. So why have they been barred?
Despite the orders, a group of lawyers, the same ones who allegedly attacked journalists on Monday, attacked a journalist on Wednesday too outside the court after assaulting Kumar. There were also reports of stones being thrown at media personnel. Clearly, restricted entry did not serve the purpose of curbing violence on the court premises.
Past cases
This is not the first time that the courts have barred reporters. During my years as a court reporter in Mumbai, I can recount several instances when journalists were barred from the court premises arbitrarily. Even during the trial of 26/11 terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab, the magistrate had barred the media from hearing a remand proceeding done via video-conferencing.
While it was understandable that we were barred from the video-conference hearing because it was a tiny room and couldn’t have accommodated many people, the court did not even want us to hear the arguments of special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam. I had asked the court to pass an order before throwing us out. Perhaps not wanting to have this decision on record, the court had given in and let us cover the proceedings.
The same thing happened during the remand hearing of Nooriya Haveliwala, who allegedly mowed down two people after losing control of her car in 2010. In this case, her lawyers filed an application seeking that the court proceedings be made in-camera. In-camera proceedings are usually held in sensitive cases, primarily rape cases where the court is mandated to bar the media throughout the trial to protect the victim's identity.
In this case, the magistrate did not blink an eyelid before passing an order barring the media from the proceedings. The magistrate said that freedom of media is subject to limitations such as “availability of the accommodation in the court hall”.
Along with my two colleagues, Mustafa Plumber and Aariz Chandra, I filed a case before the Bombay High Court. The order imposing restrictions was quashed within 24 hours. Even the lawyer appearing for the state did not object to our plea. The Bombay High Court ordered that the journalists could cover the proceedings and make notes “without causing any inconvenience”, or causing “any obstruction and hindrance” to the working and functioning of the Court".
Little impact
In the present case, the Supreme Court took into consideration apprehensions expressed by student groups, press, general public and the legal fraternity and decided to regulate the entry of people in the courtroom. This was broadly agreed upon by all parties, and in fact, the names of the media personnel (selected from news agencies) to be present in the courtroom were given by the journalists in the court itself.
However, the Supreme Court order had little impact on the ground.
The order is discriminatory even if it was given on grounds of security. Even in high security courts, like in Mumbai's Arthur Road Jail which hosted the 26/11 trial and 1993 serial blasts case, journalists were allowed to enter and cover the proceedings as long as they had an identity card issued by the police. This order also works against journalists of small publications and television channels (and freelancers like me) who should be allowed to cover the proceedings without relying on other mainstream media. It also sets a terrible precedent for smaller courts, who are anyway known to follow their own whims.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!