IMPORTANT POINT
The media's right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to restrictions to protect individual dignity and fair trial rights, emphasizing responsible journalism in reporting criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

These writ petitions raise an interesting question as regards the scope, content and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression enuring to the media when they report facts about ongoing criminal investigations or the proceedings in cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums in the country. The writ petitions were initially considered by a Full Bench of this Court. However, by an order dated 24.05.2018, the Full Bench took the view that in the light of an earlier decision of another Full Bench of this Court in S. Sudin v. Union of India and Others – [2015 (2) KLT 296 (FB)], these matters needed to be referred to a Larger Bench of five Judges for consideration. It is thus, and pursuant to an order dated 02.09.2024 of the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, that these matters are now before us.

The issue to be considered:

Taking note of the specific prayers sought for in the writ petitions, in the light of the law as it then stood, the Full Bench of this Court that was considering the matter earlier had, on 21.02.2017, framed the following six issues for its consideration;

1. Whether the existing regulations are sufficient to keep the media and press within the bounds of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India?

2. Does the case reported in (2012) 10 SCC 603 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation's case finally decide on the powers of the court to frame guidelines for reporting/publishing the court proceedings? If not, whether it is necessary to frame guidelines by the High Court?

3. Whether the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is available to Media Institutions/Corporation apart from citizens?

4. Whether a Media room available to news reporters in the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be provided for in the High Court also?

5. Are the Press and Media Institutions under an obligation to publish true and correct version of the news? If so, can the media project their own policies and views as part of the news?

6. In terms of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, are not the citizens entitled to know the true and correct events covered by the news items and to insist for true and correct reporting?

However, the Full Bench later referred this matter to a Larger Bench since it noticed that another Full Bench of this Court had, in Sudin (supra), held that a writ cannot be issued directing the media to adhere to Norms of Journalistic Conduct.

3. When these matters were taken up for hearing by us on 30.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents in all the three writ petitions. We felt that in the light of the developments in our free speech jurisprudence in the years since 2017, and in view of the transparency in court proceedings ushered in through technological innovations such as video-conferencing and live streaming of court proceedings, the sole issue that now remains to be considered in these proceedings can be framed as under:

“What is the scope, extent and content of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the press/media under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, in the context of reporting facts relating to criminal investigations and cases pending adjudication before various adjudicatory forums in our country ?”

By framing the issue as above, we hope to find answers to the following questions viz. (i) whether the print and electronic media have unlimited and unrestricted freedom to publish details of criminal cases pending their investigation and trial, (ii) whether any restriction in that regard can and ought to be put in place by this court? and (iii) whether this court can frame guidelines regarding reporting of criminal cases at the stage of investigation and trial?

We therefore requested the learned counsel appearing for the parties in these writ petitions to address their arguments on the above issue alone.

The arguments of counsel:

4. Th