Fundamental Right to Carry on Occupation Duties Under Article 19(1)(G) Of the Constitution; Journalists Moves MP High Court for Liv-Streaming, Permission to Attend Court.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A plea has been filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court by Four Journalists challenging the Court’s video conferencing Rules which bar the entry of litigants, third parties, and strangers (including)Journalists) into virtual court without express permission.
The Petitioners Nupur Thapliyal,Sparsh Upadhyay, Areeb Uddin Ahmed and Rahul Dubeyare all Journalists working with reputed online digital media or print media houses of the country. The petitioners No 1 and 2 are working with Live Law Media Ltd as duly employed legal Journalists where as the petitioner No3 is working as special correspondent wit “Bar and Bench” while petitioner No.4 is a Senior Journalist with Dainik Bhaskar.
Under the impugned rules, only Advocates engaged in the case, are permitted to appear and plea before the Court when hearing is done through video conferencing. Any other person who does not fall within the definition of “required person “or has no direct relation with the case, is completely barred from attending the VC proceedings.
The petitioners contends that the rule 16 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rules,2020 reads as follows.
Third parties will be allowed to remain present during video conferencing upon specific order being issued by the concerned Court. Each Court shall be guided by such general or specific orders made in that regard by the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of their administrative jurisdiction.
The petitioners are represented by Advocate Manu Maheshwari.
It is submitted that Journalists and media persons are allowed to attend the hearings only on a “specific order” issued by the “Concerned Court “which means that if an order is not issued by the concerned court, then Journalists like the petitioners cannot attend the proceedings and [They won’t be able to cover the orders, outcome and arguments advanced by the Advocates during the hearing] they always risks adverse action being instituted against them for attending the said proceedings unauthorizedly.
It is urged that direction be made to the registry to provide court video conferencing links to the Press Media immediately, to enable them to report the Court proceedings, on the Court Video Conferencing links being provided to them.
The petitioners further contended that
The said Rule further states that with intent to avoid delay in judicial proceeding due to non-availability of parties, counsels, witnesses and accused, there is an urgent need for a user-friendly video conferencing facility and other modes of audio-visual electronic linkage for the purpose of hearing of the cases as well as recording of evidence of witnesses unable to attend the Court. The information Technology is a good tool for speedy trial and speedy justice.
The petitioner has relied upon Swapnil Tripathi & Ors.V. Supreme Court of India & Ors. Whereby the Supreme Court had decided to live-stream Court proceedings in the larger public interest.
