The main legal point established is that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, encompasses the right to attend and report on judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of open trials and public access to proceedings, subject to exceptions for the administration of justice.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as common issues are involved therein and principal prayer is identical for issuance of direction to the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicines from preventing the members of the public in general and the petitioners in particular from attending the enquiries held under section 22 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965.

2. For the sake of convenience we intend to refer to the facts of Writ Petition No. 493 of 1990. The first petitioner in this writ petition is a journalist employed in the Times of India and she has filed the petition in her capacity as Journalist as well as in public interest. The second petitioner Medico Friends Circle is a registered society and trust. The first respondent is the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine, statutory body established under section 3 of Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965') and the second respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The first petitioner claims to have interest in socio-medical issues and has published some articles in that regard. Both the petitioners claim to be keenly involved in the issues relating to medical ethics. It is petitioners case that one Mr. Singhi made a complaint to first respondent on 28-4-89 principally against Dr. P.B. Desai of Bombay Hospital alleging therein that on account of Dr. Desai's criminal negligence and unethical behaviour his wife died. As a result of this complaint filed by Mr. Singhi, the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine (respondent No. 1) issued notice to Dr. P.B. Desai and others and commenced an enquiry under section 22 of the Act. Mr. Singhi retired in 1988 as Deputy Secretary to Government of Rajasthan and the complaint filed by him attracted national attention. The first petitioner as a Journalist sought to attend the enquiry proceedings before Maharashtra Medical Council but the same was refused giving rise to the present writ petition.

3. In response to the writ petition, the first respondent filed initially an affidavit opposing admission of the petition and thereafter filed affidavit in reply after rule was issued. The first respondent has set up the case that the right claimed by petitioners to attend the enquiry proceedings under section 22 of the Act of 1965 cannot be an absolute right and petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to attend the enquiry proceedings. The diverse reasons given therefore are that Maharashtra Medical Council is a professional Tribunal and is entitled to regulate its own proceedings which would include holding of proceedings in camera; the reputation of a person against whom complaint is lodged is sacrosanct and can not be allowed to be damaged, tarnished or prejudiced if the complaint is frivolous or bogus and, therefore, publication of establishment of the truth in the enquiry proceedings in-camera proceedings would be essential. In the affidavit in reply it is admitted that Maharashtra Medical Council is quasi judicial body empowered to regulate professional conduct, discipline and ethics in Indian medicine and similar to Medical Council of India are bodies like institute of Chartered Accountants of India constituted under Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the Bar Council constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Press Council of India constituted under the Press Council Act, 1965, the Dental Council of India constituted under the Dentists Act, 1948 and before all these statutory bodies the disciplinary proceedings are held in-camera and are not open to public at large.

4. Mr. Gonsalves, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners relying upon the provisions of Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 and the Maharashtra Medical Council Rules, 1967 submitted that the enquiry held by the Maharashtra Medical Council or the Executive Committee of the said Council in respect of misconduct of any registered practi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document