The All India Bar Association (AIBA) has has requested the Supreme Court’s secretary general to issue contempt proceedings against Tamil TV news channel, Thanthi, for apparently having broadcast live the arguments of Fali Nariman successfully arguing for J Jayalalithaa’s bail in the Supreme Court, reported the Business Standard.
AIBA chairman Adish C Aggarwala said: “It is inappropriate and contemptuous to record and telecast court proceedings. The telecast of Fali Nariman’s arguments in Jayalalithaa bail matter in the Supreme Court by Thanthi Television on October 18 is contemptuous and the Supreme Court of India should take stern action of contempt of court against all concerned who are responsible for its recording and telecast.”
Also see: Very topical John Oliver on US live Supreme Court TV reporting, via @logic on Twitter
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Without meaning to belabour what everybody must already know (except, of course, the august dignitaries of the AIBA, whatever that is), nonetheless, perhaps it may jog people's memories when one reminds them that it cannot be "civil" contempt, because there hasn't been any disobedience (much less 'wilful' disobedience) of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or a breach (much less a 'wilful' breach) of an undertaking given to any court.
And it, equally, cannot be criminal contempt, because : i) the act has not scandalised or tended to scandalise, or lowered or tended to lower the authority of, any court ( Proof ? the hearing is over, and no one complained that the authority of the court has been lowered) ; (ii) nor has it prejudiced, or interfered or tended to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding (Proof ? the hearing is over, and no one complained that the hearing was interfered with); (iii) nor has it interfered or tended to interfere with, or obstructed or tended to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ( Proof ? the hearing is over, and no one complained that the administration of justice had been interfered or obstructed with in any manner).
So, what's the shouting all about ?
And even if it is contempt of some esoteric kind, lets not forget the life-saving non obstante clause in Section 13 of the CoCA, which says (emphasis on the word "substantially") : Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
So, if any person (or personage) thinks that the act of recording a court's hearing constitutes criminal contempt of court, its time he got down from his high horse (or ivory tower), and got real, and smelt the (real world's) roses.
Frankly, I am very suspicious of any Judge who objects to his Court's proceedings being recorded. He (or she) obviously doesn't want a trace of what transpired in his (or her) Court available other than what he (or she) sets out in the order.
Pray, why ? (Nawww.....don't bother to answer that, we can all guess...).
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first