Bench asks LiveLaw's reporter to stop reporting court proceedings and leave the courtroom#RahulGandhi https://t.co/4q5spb8BlN Justice Mathur : Aap (referring to the reporter of Live Law) bahar jaaiye aur wahan reporting kijiye apni.
Post-lunch Session: The post-lunch session began at approximately 4:27 PM, two hours after the court reassembled (at 2:30 PM).
The post-lunch session lasted approximately 12-15 minutes after the reporter exited the court-room.
It is out of the question that a court holds the absolute authority to expel individuals who disrupt court proceedings.
He was simply posting live updates of the court proceedings on Live Law's Twitter handle from his mobile phone, maintaining a quiet and unobtrusive presence in the courtroom.
While hearing a PIL Plea challenging Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's election as an MP from the Rae Bareli constituency, the Allahabad High Court yesterday asked a LiveLaw reporter to stop reporting on the court proceedings and immediately leave the Courtroom premises.
Sparsh Upadhyay, an associate editor with LiveLaw, and the only journalist present in the courtroom posting live updates on Live Law's official Twitter handle from his mobile phone, was asked by a bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal to vacate the court-room with the words, "Aap bahar jakar apni reporting kariye". Bench asks LiveLaw's reporter to stop reporting court proceedings and leave the courtroom
#RahulGandhi https://t.co/4q5spb8BlN Justice Mathur : Aap (referring to the reporter of Live Law) bahar jaaiye aur wahan reporting kijiye apni. #AllahabadHighCourt — Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 26, 2024 This episode raises questions about its broader implications for journalistic freedom and the public's right to be informed about court proceedings, especially in matters that interest and sometimes affect the public at large. Being one of the pillars of Democracy, the judiciary is tasked with upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice, and its proceedings are typically open to the public to maintain transparency and accountability. However, with the happening of such incidents, the Judiciary risks eroding public trust and accountability by curbing the media's ability to report on its proceedings despite the availability of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press. It must be underscored that this right of the press or a Journalist is not just a privilege but a fundamental necessity as by providing real-time updates and insights, reporters ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done to the public at large, a principle that is essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system. However, before moving ahead, let us understand what actually transpired inside the Court-room. The hearing on the PIL plea was conducted in two sessions (pre- and post-lunch). The details of pre- and post-lunch sessions are summarised below:
Pre-lunch Session: The bench presided at 10:15 AM sharp. The petition was at item no. 18. The hearing in the matter commenced at approximately 12:19 PM. The courtroom was about 70% full, predominantly occupied with lawyers 9and their clerks and a few interns) awaiting their matters. The reporter, standing near a three-seater bench (placed on the right side of the Court) meant for interns and advocate clerks, was live-tweeting the proceedings. During this session, the court primarily focused on Advocate Ashok Pandey, who represented the PIL petitioner, Mr. Vignesh Shishira. The court questioned why Pandey had not filed a Demand Draft (DD) of ₹25,000/—along with the plea, as mandated by a 2016 High Court order. In this session, the court also reprimanded the petitioner, Mr. Shishira, for standing too close to the counsel near the dais. Though the Court wanted to adjourn the matter for another day, Advocate Pandey insisted that it be heard that day. At his insistence, the Court decided to take up the matter again post-lunch. This session concluded at around 12:46 PM. Post-lunch Session: The post-lunch session began at approximately 4:27 PM, two hours after the court reassembled (at 2:30 PM). The court resumed questioning Advocate Pandey, again asking about the 2016 order of the High Court that required him to file a DD of ₹25,000/—with each petition. Advocate Pandey claimed his right to file petitions during his argument without submitting the required DD. 5 minutes into the hearing, at around 4:32 PM, Justice Alok Mathur directed his attention to the LiveLaw reporter, who had been standing near the three-seater bench and live-tweeting the proceedings. Justice Mathur instructed, "Yeh reporting aap bahar jakar kariye (Do your reporting from outside the court-room)." The reporter, seeking confirmation, asked if the direction was indeed for him. Justice Mathur affirmed, "Ji aap. Aap bahar jaaiye aur wahan jakar reporting kijiye apni," (Yes, you. Go outside and do your reporting there)" Following this directive, the reporter left the courtroom. A tweet was posted from the LiveLaw's Twitter handle by the reporter (at around 4:36 PM), stating that the bench had asked the reporter to leave the courtroom. The post-lunch session lasted approximately 12-15 minutes after the reporter exited the court-room. It is out of the question that a court holds the absolute authority to expel individuals who disrupt court proceedings. However, in this instance, the reporter was not causing any disturbance that would warrant such action. He was simply posting live updates of the court proceedings on Live Law's Twitter handle from his mobile phone, maintaining a quiet and unobtrusive presence in the courtroom.
