The Supreme Court had refused to entertain a plea of the petitioner which sought for a declaration that the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression didnt lie with reference to the ongoing judicial matters and final orders, except to the level of fair and true reporting.
The Bench was headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde who supervised over the matter and informed petitioner in person Dr. Subash Vijayran that he was saying the same thing as it was stated in the law itself. The CJI remarked that Read the law and you will find that what you have said is the law.
The petitioner, Dr. Vijayran had filed the petition in response to the issue relating to the erosion of peoples faith in the Court and Judiciary due the way media has been acting and giving judgments on the cases which are yet to be heard by the Court itself. The grievance of Dr. Vijayran further mentioned that he against lawyers especially Senior Advocates who were consuming the precious and valuable time of the Court and expressed their disapproval with adverse orders rendered by the Court in the public sphere.
The CJI responded to this stating that Your motives are good and noble, but you are trying to get a relief which we cannot give. The court further noted that the prayer of the petitioner was parallel to the saying that nobody should commit murder. The Court further clarified that nobody should commit murder but one cannot pass an order for this and thus advised the petitioner to withdraw his plea as the Court didnt dismiss it.
Keeping in mind the view presented, the petitioner withdrew his plea.
The plea filed by Dr. Vijayran pleaded for declaration of Court to declare that no freedom of speech and expression with regard tosubjudice matters and final orders except to the extent of just and correct reporting of the proceeding before the Court. It further stated that such reporting must be conducted in a manner that does not directly or indirectly ascribe motives to the Judges or the Court while making their decision.
Lastly, it was also avowed by the petitioner that there was a growing trend of a group of lawyers who were criticizing the Judges and the Judiciary while directly or indirectly attributing motives on the Judges for passing the verdict in a particular way. These acts are prima facie institute contempt of court on part of those lawyers.
.webp)
