Source:-https:\/\/www.nationalheraldindia.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed concerns over the practice of “media trial” while hearing a batch of petitions seeking regulations on the reportage of the Sushant Singh Rajput death case, legal news website LiveLaw.in has reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“If you become the investigator, prosecutor and the judge, what is the use of us? Why are we here,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice G S Kulkarni asked advocate Malvika Trivedi, the lawyer representing Republic TV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you are so interested in unearthing the truth, you should have looked at the CrPC! Ignorance of law is no excuse,” the bench told Trivedi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The lawyer submitted that the channel was doing “investigative journalism” and was pointing out the defects in the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trivedi submitted that the court cannot say that the media should not point out the lacunae in the investigation and that truth should not be reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In response, the bench stated that it was not suggesting that the media’s throat should be throttled but was only concerned about the compliance of the Programme Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“We are only on the short point as to whether the Programme Code is violated or not & whether your reporting contravenes any of the laid down norms or not,” the Court said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“We are only saying you must know your boundaries and within your boundaries, you are allowed to do everything. Do not Cross-Over,” the bench added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench also asked the lawyer of Republic TV if asking the public who should be arrested in a case is part of investigative journalism. This was in reference to the hashtag campaign ‘#ArrestRhea’ run by the channel in Twitter following the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Is this part of investigative journalism? Asking public about their opinion on who should be arrested?” the bench asked Trivedi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“When a case is under investigation and the issue is whether it’s a homicide or a suicide and a channel is saying it is murder, is that investigative journalism?” the bench asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench told the channel’s lawyer “investigative powers are given to the police under the CrPC”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The bench also expressed its disapproval at the manner in which Sushant’s death was reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“There are certain suicide reporting guidelines. There should be no sensational headlines. Don’t you have respect for the dead? It is so unfortunate,” the bench remarked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advocate Kunal Tandon, appearing for Times Now, urged the bench not to disturb the ‘self-regulation’ model for media as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the Sahara case judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Ultimately there has to be a Lakshman Rekha with certain issues to it – there may be popular views, there may be unpopular views. A news report has to be read in whole and a liberal man will look at it wholly,” he submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court also heard the lawyers of Aaj Tak, India TV, Zee News and ABP News.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the lawyer for Zee News told the bench that there are redressal mechanisms available for a person aggrieved, the court said that such remedies, be it approaching the self-regulatory bodies, government or the courts, all come into picture only after the damage has been done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“These are all aspects after the damage has been done. But how will the person get justice after damage has been done? How does a person in a village or remote place get justice?” the bench asked.3<\/p>\n