• The Supreme Court agreed to examine the possibility of imposing curbs on advocates airing their views in the media about pending cases and the judges handling them.
• During a hearing on contempt petitions filed by the government and the Attorney General of India against a renowned civil rights lawyer.
• The government contended that the tweets “wilfully and deliberately” made a false statement in a case pending in court.
Freedom carries with it responsibility
• The SC Bench agreed that though the flash of cameras and media attention may seem irresistible to some, a line needed to be firmly drawn.
• Observing that “freedom carries with it a responsibility”, it noted that some lawyers even used air time to attack judges, whose code of conduct did not allow them to go public.
• The bench also observed that some lawyers rushed to the media as soon as their petition was filed.
• While the petition may contain all manner of allegations, and was even likely to be later withdrawn in court, the damage, however, had been done by that time.
Damage to the institution
• It can be often sees just after a judgement is pronounced it is publicly proclaimed that it is a black day, bringing disrepute to the institution.
• When a matter is sub judice, the lawyers are expected to maintain expected to maintain the decorum of the court and should avoid going public and being part of media and TV debate.
• The attack on judicial proceedings in a brazen, willful and malicious manner would tend to shake the very foundation of the justice delivery system.
Mains Paper 3: Polity | Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary Ministries
Prelims level: Not Much
Mains level: Various aspects of the contempt of court