The Supreme Court on Friday emphasised that courts must not order takedown of media reporting of court proceedings without valid reason at the cost of public debate and impartiality..The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan added that there must be a robust debate for the improvement of any system, including the judiciary. "It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media, delete this, take that down."The Court also said that the media and the judiciary must supplement each other for the betterment of a liberal democracy"For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary. Introspection is the key. That can only happen if there is robust debate, even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other," the Court observed..The Bench further stressed that the courts must remain open to the public criticism and debate."We may once again remind ourselves of the profound words of this Court expressed through the nine-judge bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms. In fact, courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism," Justice Bhuyan said, while pronouncing the verdict.The Court also said that even matters pending before the courts can be debated by public. "Every important issue needs to be rigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court."On criticism against judges, the Court said."Those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges, and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Krishna Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action." .However, it also held that the courts have the power to postpone reporting of judicial proceedings in the interest of administration of justice. In these cases, the burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate the substantial risk of prejudice to the pending trial which would therefore justify postponement of offending publication, the Court added."Such an order should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the court proceedings. The order of postponement will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period," it clarified.This order should be subject to the twin test of necessity and proportionality to be applied only in cases where there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, or to the fairness of the trial, it added.Further, the Court said that it would be open to the media to challenge such an order in appropriate proceedings."A postponement order is not a punitive measure, but is a preventive measure," it further said..The Court made these observations while setting aside Delhi High Court's direction asking Wikimedia Foundation to take down the page titled 'Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation' which gave details about the legal dispute between the two entities.The page in question documented the proceedings in the defamation case filed by ANI against Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court. The High Court had last year taken objection to the page and said the discussion about the Court's observations would amount to contempt of court.
