Via media evolved by UK is worthy of emulation

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court could well have taken a leaf out of its British counterpart’s book before initiating the move to frame media guidelines for reporting sub judice matters. For, rather than doing so though court proceedings, the head of the English judiciary, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, chaired a meeting of judges and journalists in 2009 to come up with a set of reporting restrictions in a consensual manner.
The via media evolved by Britain is worthy of emulation as it avoids the pitfalls of both self regulation and judicially (or legislatively) imposed media restrictions. Self regulation, though the most preferred option for journalists, has often failed to satisfy those who are aggrieved that media reports of sub judice matters have violated their right to fair trial. Likewise, the restrictions devised by the joint collaboration between journalists and judges are unlikely to have a chilling effect on media freedom.
The 2009 meeting under the chairmanship of Justice Igor Judge actually updated an elaborate set of guidelines, which had been prepared in 2000. That was when this practical guide entitled “reporting restrictions in the criminal courts” had first been put together in Britain by judges and journalists. As Justice Igor Judge put it, “Their representatives worked closely together, each fully respecting the independence of the other, to address the misunderstandings and problems to which reporting restrictions in the court can give rise.”
If British journalists have agreed to something that goes way beyond self regulation, it is because these consensual guidelines do not compromise on the open justice principle even as they uphold the due process of fair trial. It has been ensured that any departure from the general rule of reporting court proceedings “fully and contemporaneously” is strictly based on “necessity”.
The exception has to justify at least two conditions. First, the need for any reporting restriction should be convincingly established and its terms should be proportionate. Second, unless it is automatically required by statute (victims of sexual offences, for instance, are given lifetime anonymity), no court should ever impose any discretionary reporting restriction without first hearing representations from the media.
Notwithstanding aberrations like the phone hacking controversy, the consensual restrictions are reported to have helped Britain create a climate for balancing the conflicting needs of media freedom with those of free trial. Therefore, in the ongoing proceedings before a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing two media associations, has called for the option of framing guidelines “extra-judicially”, through cooperation between judges, lawyers and journalists.