Justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, so said Lord Hewart in a1924 case. The proper administration of law in accordance with rules of natural justice requires that proceedings of the court should be held openly and in public. The open court rule is the norm for legal proceedings. It is recognised throughout the world as being a basic standard by which the quality of legal systems may be judged.
Lord Hewart’s historic maxim is incorporated into numerous national constitutions and parliamentary statutes. Defendant’s right to public hearing is now treated as a human right. Every court of justice, as rightly held by Lord Halsbury, is open to every subject of the king. And that includes the reporters also. It is the unhindered and unrestricted presence of the reporters in a court room that ensures openness. Their presence is the litmus by which openness is tested.
Highlighting the important role played by the press in ensuring the quality of the legal system, Lord Chief Justice Widgery observed: “...the presence or absence of the press is a vital factor in deciding whether a particular hearing was or was not in open court. I find it difficult to imagine a case which can be held publicly if the press have been actively excluded.” When certain lawyers violently clamour for their ouster from court rooms, they are shutting the doors of the temple of justice to the public.
Ignorance of law is no excuse; on the part of lawyers it is abhorrent. Entry of a reporter into a court room is not a privilege granted to him. By ensuring their presence in a court room, both the judge and the lawyers are discharging a bounden constitutional duty. It is for them as well as for the people (We the People) that they are present in congested and crowded court room with a notebook.
Not only the lawyers but the judges at times forget this cardinal rule. The judges get upset when their casual and unguarded comments appear in the media, creating a flutter. They want some sort of restraint on court reporting. Even the Supreme Court, despite its historic judgments enlarging the scope of freedom of speech and expression, recently tried to impose restrictions on court reporting by framing guidelines. Expressing the difficulty in finding an acceptable constitutional balance between free press and administration of justice, the Constitution Bench, while deciding the Sahara case, said guidelines for reporting could not be framed across the board.
There are acceptable means, apart from stone-throwing and violent abuse, to correct errors and prevent abuses. Intolerance towards the media is a sure sign of negation of democracy. Lawyers who are foot-soldiers in the struggle for protection of rule of law are not expected to send a wrong message. An erratum is a better option than be erratic – for the reporters and lawyers. Next time when a reporter is seen in a court room, dear lawyer, greet him with a smile.
(The writer is a lawyer, former MP and social critic)
