Broadcast Editors Association says Parliament should frame media rules

New Delhi : The Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) on Tuesday opposed before the Supreme Court any move to frame guidelines for media for reporting sub judice matters saying that such a measure could be undertaken by Parliament only. Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the body said that the apex court had taken “enormous liberty with the Constitution of India. But you (judiciary) need statutory powers to take any or dilute the provision of the life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.”

He was making submission before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia set up last month to determine the extent of media coverage of pending cases after leakage of some documents in a section of media in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd and others versus Securities and Exchange Board of India and another.“Backing of a law is necessary to make any guidelines and if the freedom of speech is restricted in any manner, it requires Parliamentary legislation,” he said.

The apex court Bench could invite suggestions from different quarters and send its recommendations on the issue of guidelines to the Parliament which could be persuaded to pass the guidelines as legislation, he said.Jethmalani said that the Article 21 of the Constitution has been held to be a guarantee of fair trial while Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code gave enough power to the courts to ensure fair trial of an accused.

He also contended that an order to “further publication and pre-publication restriction” for media in the form of guidelines would be ultra vires. During the hearing, the Bench raised the question as to what should be the outcome when instances came before the court where the presumption of innocence of accused was infringed or where the media went on to analyse the evidence even prior to the court doing it.

The senior advocate, however, said that the court should exercise its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution not for framing guidelines for media but for disposing of pending matters.He also contended that had the court used its power of contempt effectively, there would have been no need for framing any guidelines for media. Earlier, the Bench observed that the power of defamation and contempt were no more efficacious as those could not be used by an ordinary citizen in case of violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution.