Kriti Agrawal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court, this week will hear the petitions of legal journalists seeking authorization for live streaming and live reporting.
While the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia will hear the petition today, the Allahabad High Court’s Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi will hear the matter tomorrow.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, together with Advocate Manu Maheshwari, will argue the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court asserts their fundamental rights to attend, observe, transcribe, and report on Court proceedings pertaining to matters of general public importance, four journalists have petitioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court for permission to live-stream and live report.
The petition was brought by journalists Nupur Thapliyal and Sparsh Upadhyay (Live Law Media Pvt. Ltd.), Areeb Uddin Ahmed (Bar & Bench), and Rahul Dubey through Advocate Manu Maheshwari (Dainik Bhaskar Prakashan Ltd.).
The petitioner challenged the MP Video Conferencing & Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rules, 2020 to the degree that they prevent third parties from accessing virtual Court sessions and make real-time reporting on a public forum for people impossible.
The Petitioners cited the case of Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors., in which the Supreme Court agreed to live-stream Court sessions in the public interest.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” said a five-judge panel.
According to this ruling, the High Courts of Kerala, Bombay, Gujarat, and Madras also approved live-streaming of Court sessions.
The appeal before the Allahabad High Court requested the authority to live-stream and live-report Court proceedings in Uttar Pradesh, including High Courts, Subordinate Courts, and Tribunals.
According to the petitioner, live-streaming and live-reporting of Court proceedings will restore such access and align Video Conferencing (VC) sessions with the ‘Open Justice’ ethos.
The petitioner argues, “The fundamental right of the petitioners as journalists to acquire access to VC or physical hearings and report the same as they occur is well-established in the day, as the same is an implied component of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”