Reporting is an expert’s job

Narad

There is that silly – and entirely unacceptable – notion that anybody can be a reporter. In recent months one has been frequently hearing about “citizen journalists”, citizens who report on contemporary events they have personally witnessed. But, by and large, reporting is not for ordinary citizens. Reporting is too serious a profession to be outsourced to citizens who have no concept of what to report and how to report it. This is true, to make it plain, in any area of reportage.

One needs a professional to report, for example, on sports. It is just as true in case of reviewing a film or a book. But about the most demanding of all tasks is reporting court proceedings. That calls for a high degree of professionalism because one can easily err. One has to be aware of the subtleties of law and this only a reporter who has a degree in law can undertake with some finesse. This came to be noticed when the Supreme Court recently made some references to court reporting of sub-judicial subjects. The Court must have come across some poor reporting that came as an embarrassment, possibly endangering proceedings.

Actually on  September 20, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against two English dailies for distorting court proceedings. The Bench said: “The distorted reporting of the court proceedings has the tendency of lowering the dignity of the institution and brings the entire institution of judiciary to ridicule in the eyes of the public….” What should be done in such circumstances? On September 11 the Court said that there can be no blanket guidelines to regulate media reporting of sub judice matters. Chief Justice SH Kapadia is reported as saying: “Finding an acceptable constitutional balance between free press and administration of justice is a difficult task in every legal system.” But he is also reported as saying that any aggrieved person apprehending prejudice can move the component court seeking the postponement of reporting by media in specific cases.

According to the news agency IANS, the Court said it was issuing directions to balance the rights of media to report and that of litigants to a fair trial. The Court reportedly also said a postponement order would not only safeguard fairness of trial or connected proceedings, but also prevent possible contempt by the media. One way the problem can be resolved is for the Court to insist and for the media to concede, that court proceedings – regarding any case – will have to be covered by professional lawyers. That may sound a little demanding and far-fetched, but it is not too much of an imposition on the media. A reporter with a law degree can additionally cover any event,  political, social in addition to judicial and would be an asset. He will have an additional advantage over the general purpose reporter who is normally sent to cover events of all kinds. But can a Court go to that extent of laying down a rule as to who alone can cover court proceedings? The trouble is, not many in the media cover court events on a daily basis. The media, it would seem, finds it more paying to cover social events, a task best allotted to a photographer. Besides, with newspapers these days bringing out editions from several cities, they would willy nilly have to appoint law-acquainted reporters in every city to cover courts, which, strictly from the media point of view, may be hard on them. The Court, meanwhile, is trying to be fair. But it has a job to do.

Thus, referring to the contention that restricting media or postponing the reporting of a case was contrary to open justice, the court said: “The principle of open justice is not absolute. There can be exceptions in the interest of administering justice.” The Court also seems to be clear that “guidelines for media reporting cannot be framed across the board”. The Times of India (September 13 ) felt that “it is just as well that the Supreme Court thought better of laying down guidelines on reporting of sub judice matters” because guidelines “could have put court reporters out of commission,” considering that “given the nature of codifications, journalists would have been left with little legal defence against charges of overstepping the Lakshman rekha.”

As the paper sees it “the media is anyway a heterogeneous entity and the right of journalists to cover court proceedings is an essential attribute of a fair trial.” Deccan Herald (September 13) welcomed the fact that “the Court has desisted from laying down general guidelines on reporting of cases.” It pointed out that the media even now accepts and goes by reasonable restrictions on reporting of judicial proceedings and there are also “instances of the courts conducting closed trials in rare cases.” It said: “Judicial proceedings have to be transparent so that decisions carry conviction with the people” considering that “it is a basic judicial idea that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done.” Ultimately what is called for is good – and unchallengeable – coverage of court proceedings.

As things stand, Deccan Herald feels that “the Supreme Court’s judgment empowering courts to ban reporting of hearings in cases where there is a perceived chance of interference in free and fair trials amounts to muzzling media freedom” and “it needs to be opposed like all other assaults on the functioning on the media.” This, on the whole, is a ticklish issue but one that can surely be resolved through mutual discussion. In my own time I have covered magistrate’s courts but never the High Court which my paper thought was best covered by a lawyer. Surely the matter can be settled amicably with talks between the Press Council of India, the All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference (AINEC) and informally with  the judiciary.

As always the ultimate aim should be to provide the reader with the fairest coverage of any court proceedings and the views of the Supreme Court should get the highest consideration. Access to information at every level is the right of the media which, surely, would always be honoured in India which claims to be a democracy. There is no harm in talking over matters behind-the-scene as it were to everybody’s satisfaction. Who benefits by ‘muzzling’ the media? Truth, in the end, will always prevail.