Analyzing Contours of Freedom of Press
Abstract
Freedom of the press and restrictions which could be imposed on the press have always been a volatile subject. Supreme Court in literally every decade has tried to restrict this freedom by judicial pronouncement, by which they have tried tracing the contours of freedom of the press. Recently, the Supreme Court in the Sahara real estate v. Securities exchange board took a giant leap by developing the principle ‘Postponement of Publication’ by extending a 50-year-old doctrine of ‘Prior Restraint. The Supreme Court is not only the guardian of fundamental rights but also a balancing wheel between the rights. Freedom of expression is one of the most cherished values of a free democratic society. It includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources. In essence, the freedom of expression embodies the right to know. Freedom of expression is not an absolute principle under our Constitution. Further, it may also happen one right to freedom of expression may hinder another right like the right to a fair trial. At present, the system which is followed is the ‘open justice system ‘which permits fair and accurate reports of court proceedings to be published except in cases of in-camera proceedings. The media has a right to know what is happening in courts and to disseminate the information to the public which enhances the public confidence in the transparency of court proceedings.
Metrics
References
I.A. Nos. 14 and 17 in C.A. No. 733 of 2012;11th September 2012; Hereinafter referred to as Media guidelines case
Thomas I. Emerson, "The Doctrine of Prior Restraint" (1955). 648 Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2804 available at: www.digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fsspapers/2804 (as visited on 10th Dec 2012)
Ibid
Id at 649
In the United States the freedom of speech and expression is an absolute right which ipso facto includes freedom of the press; in order to control the effect of this freedom, the US courts have to evolve certain techniques or principles. This clash of absolute rights with judicial principles can be regarded as the US clash model.
AIR 1957 SC 896.
AIR 1971 SC 481.
AIR 1989 SC 190.
John A. Gorfinkel and Julian W. Mack, Dennis v. the United States and the Clear and Present Danger Rule, 39 Cal. L. Rev. 475 (1951)
AIR 1967 SC 1.
457 US 596.
The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
Sec 2(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
Supra note 1 at pg. 51.
See, www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf ( as visited on 10thdec 2012)
Edward G. Hudon, Freedom of the Press Versus Fair Trial: The Remedy Lies with the Courts, 1 Val. U. L. Rev. 9 (1966)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
