WWW.LIVELAW.IN

SYNOPSIS The instant Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is being filed by the Petitioners for the protection of Freedom of Press i.e. the Right of media persons to report court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court and the Right to Know of public at large who include interns and litigants, under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Litigants and Interns are not able to transpire the court proceedings properly. The non-usage of the Micsystem installed at the benches of Justices and the place earmarked for Advocates to argue is not only violating the fundamental rights mentioned above but is also creating hindrance in the administration of justice. Petitioner No. 1 is a law student and Petitioner No. 2& 3 are advocates practicing in the courts of Delhi. Petitioners work in form of a group comprising law students and young lawyers. The group has been working in ensuring and promoting transparency in the affairs of Public Authorities. The group has assisted this Hon’ble Court and High Court of Delhi in deciding number of matters of Public Importance. On Petitioners plea, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi amended Delhi High Court RTI Rules, 2009 in consonance with umbrella legislation i.e. Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Petitioners also brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court of its contempt through Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 9837/2016 and consequently, this Hon’ble Court directed Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education to provide the answer-sheets to the examinees as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the law laid down in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011).

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Petitioners have also been making efforts to ensure the smooth administration of justice. In 2016, acting on Petitioners representation, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), New Delhi had reduced the huge gap between the bench of presiding members and the place earmarked for parties to argue their cases, the said gap was acting as a big hurdle for the parties, especially the senior citizens, in making their oral arguments while seeking relief. During the court internship in this Hon’ble Court, Petitioners as law interns faced great difficulty in transpiring the court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court due to non-usage of already installed Mic-system in the overcrowded court rooms. This difficulty continued to be with the Petitioners even when they appeared before this Hon’ble Court as litigants as they could not hear and see anything which violates their Right to Know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and principle of Open Court. The Media Correspondents also derive the fundamental right of Freedom of Press from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This right could only be well exercised in true letter and spirit when the Media Correspondents get free and reasonable access to the court proceedings and in reporting the same to the public at large. The non-usage of the already installed Mic system by Justices and Advocates is also restricting the Media from reporting the court proceedings of this Hon’ble court especially when this Hon’ble Court gets over-crowded. With the rise of digital media platforms, there is a great rush to break the news in real time by the Media Persons. This might cause misreporting leading to irreparable loss to all. Such misreporting can also invite Contempt of Court. The chances of

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

misreporting may easily be minimized by use of already installed MicSystem in the Court Rooms. The Petitioners taking in consideration the impediments faced by interns, litigants and media

correspondents involved in

the process of

administration of justice due to the non-usage of the already installed Mic system, Petitioner No. 1 filed an application dated 21.07.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India seeking the reasons behind the installation of the Mic system in the court rooms of this Hon’ble Court and the cost incurred thereof. In response to aforesaid RTI Application, the Petitioners received a reply dated

21.08.2017

which

states

that

“Mic system is an inherent part of the court room infrastructure of the Supreme Court of India and that a total amount of Rs. 91, 95, 859 (Ninety one lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred fifty nine rupees only) has been incurred in the replacement of the Mic system in the Court rooms of the Supreme Court of India”. Considering the above mentioned vital information, non-utilization of public asset for all, the violation of the statutory and fundamental rights of the various Stakeholders involved in the process of administration of justice, Petitioners filed a representation vide letter dated 17-10-2017 with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, humbly requesting him to ensure the mandatory use of already installed Mic system in every court room of the Supreme Court of India for the smooth administration of justice. On 11-12-2017, in a meeting called by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with the media correspondents who report the proceedings of this Hon’ble Court,

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the foremost issue raised by correspondents before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was that the Justices and Advocates are inaudible and should use the Mic-system, which would enable them to report the correct court proceedings. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India assured the journalists present in the meeting that he will look into the issue seriously so far as his court i.e. Court No. 1 is concerned. However, as per the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, he cannot commit about other courts as the decision has to be unanimous. But, nothing needful has been done in order to protect the fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights of various stakeholders involved in the process of Administration of Justice.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

LIST OF DATES DATE

PARTICULARS

21/07/2017

Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005with Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India seeking information regarding the installation of the Mic system in the court rooms of the Supreme Court of India and the cost incurred thereof.

21/08/2017

Petitioner No.1 received a reply to the RTI application dated 21.07.2017 from the Additional Registrar/CPIO, Supreme Court of India wherein it was stated that the a) Mic system is an inherent part of the court room infrastructure and has been there since inception. b) The information further revealed that total amount of Rs. 91, 95, 859 (Ninety one lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred fifty nine rupees only) has been incurred in the replacement of the Mic system in the Court rooms of the Supreme Court of India.

17/10/2017

Petitioners filed a representation with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, humbly requesting him to ensure the mandatory use of already installed Mic system in every court room of the Supreme Court of India for the proper Administration of Justice.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11/12/2017

Meeting called by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with the Supreme Court of India media correspondents, the foremost issue was raisedby the correspondents before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was that the judges are inaudible and should use Mic-system, which would enable them to give correct reporting of the court proceedings to the public at large. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India assured correspondents present there to look into the issue seriously so far as his court No. 1 is concerned. However, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India said he cannot commit about other courts as the decision has to be unanimous. But, no decision has been taken in this regard till date.

23.03.2018

Hence the present Writ Petition.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION) Writ Petition (Civil) No. .................... of 2018

IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTMATTER OF:

Kapildeep Agarwal S/o Deepak Agarwal 128/30, B-Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur-208011

............Petitioner No. 1

Kumar Shanu S/o Kundan Kumar Singh 5/13, Shivshakti Apartments, Sector-71 Noida, UP-201307

............Petitioner No. 2

Paras Jain S/o Satish Kumar Jain B-9/3, VallabhVihar Society Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085

...........Petitioner No. 3

Versus Supreme Court of India Through Sectary General New Delhi

…....…Respondent

WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO ENSURE THE MANDATORY USAGE OF ALREADY INSTRALLED MIC-SYSTEM AT THE BENCHES OF JUSTICES AND THE PLACE EARMARKED FOR ADVOCATES TO ARGUE IN THIS HON’BLE COURT To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

The Humble Petition of the Petitioners above-named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: . 1. That the Petitioners have no personal interest in the litigation and that

the

petition

is

not

guided

by

self-gain

of

any

person/institution/Body and that there is no motive other than public interest in filing this writ petition. Petitioners work in form of a group of law students and young lawyers for the promotion of transparency and accountability in the affairs of public authorities. Petitioner No.1 is a law student and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are practicing advocates in Delhi. The group has assisted this Hon’ble Court and High Court of Delhi in deciding the matters of Public Importance. On Petitioners plea, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi amended Delhi High Court RTI Rules, 2009 in consonance with umbrella legislation i.e. Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Petitioners also brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court of its contempt through Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 9837/2016 and consequently this Hon’ble Court directed Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education to provide the answer-sheets to the examinees as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the law laid down in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011). 2. That in 2016, acting on a representation filed by Petitioner No. 2 and 3, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), New Delhi had reduced the huge gap between the bench of presiding members and the place earmarked for parties to argue their cases, the

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

said gap was acting as a big hurdle for the parties, especially the senior citizens, in putting their oral arguments while seeking relief. 3. That the Petitioners as law interns, in their initial encounter with the overcrowded court rooms of the Supreme Court, witnessed great difficulty in transpiring the court proceedings. A situation like this completely frustrates the purpose of doing Court Internship. This could easily be avoided with the use of already installed Mic System in the Court Rooms of this Hon’ble Court. Earlier, Petitioners were of the view that this difficulty was just limited to law interns. Later on, unfortunately, Petitioners faced the same problem as litigants. A litigant not being able to properly observe the proceedings of his/her own case, is nothing but a travesty of justice as their access is restricted up to the space provided in the last row, from whereJustices and Advocates could hardly be heard and seen. In the administration of justice, justice is done in the interest of all and not merely of the parties particularly in the matters of public importance. 4. That the Media Correspondents derive the fundamental right of Freedom of Press from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This right could only be exercised in true letter and spirit when the Media Persons get free and reasonable access to observe the court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court and reporting the same to the public at large. The non-usage of Mic-system by the Justices and Advocates of this Hon’ble Court puts Media Correspondents in great difficulty in reporting the court proceedings. This might cause misreporting leading to irreparable loss to all the stakeholders involved. Such misreporting can also invite Contempt of Court. The

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

chances of misreporting may easily be minimized by use of already installed Mic-System in the Court Rooms. 5. That the Petitioners taking in consideration the impediments faced by all stakeholders involved in the process of administration of justice due to the non-usage of the already installed Mic system, on 21.07.2017, the Petitioner No. 1 filed an application with the Public Information Officer (PIO), Supreme Court of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information: a. Certified Copy of the order of the committee, Supreme Court of India which recommended the installation of mic system in the court rooms of the Supreme Court of India. b. Expenses incurred on the installation of the mic system mentioned in Enquiry No.1 above. 6. That in response to aforesaid RTI Application, the Petitioner No. 1 received a reply dated 21.08.2017 containing information as follows: a. Mic system is an inherent part of the court room infrastructure of the Supreme Court of India and b. The total amount of Rs. 91, 95, 859 (Ninety one lacs ninety five thousand eight hundred fifty nine rupees only) has been incurred in the replacement of the Mic system in the Court rooms of the Supreme

Court

of

India.

The true copy of the RTI Application dated 21.07.2017 and RTI Reply dated 21.08.2017 are enclosed herewith as Annexure-P1 (Colly) at Page No. ______to______. 7. That considering the above mentioned vital information obtained, non-utilization of public asset, the violation of the statutory and

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

fundamental rights of the various Stakeholders involved in the process of administration of justice, Petitioners filed a representation vide letter dated 17-10-2017 with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, humbly requesting him to ensure the mandatory use of already installed Mic system in every court room of the Supreme Court of India. The true copy of the Representation dated 17.10.2017 filed by the Petitioners with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is enclosed herewith as Annexure-P2 at Page No. ____ to ____. 8. That on 11-12-2017, in a meeting called by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with the Supreme Court media correspondents, the foremost issue raised by correspondents before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was that the Justices of this Hon’ble Court are inaudible and should use Mic-system, which would enable them to correctly reporting of the court proceedings. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India assured the correspondents present in the meetingthat he will look into the issue seriously so far as his court i.e. Court No. 1 is concerned. However, as per the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, he cannot commit about other courts as the decision has to be unanimous. But, nothing needful has been done in order to protect the fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights of the stakeholders involved in the process

of

administration

of

justice.

The true copy of the media report published by one of the leading online legal news networks namely Live Law dated 11.12.2017 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-P3 at Page No. ______ to ______.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

9. That it is respectfully submitted that Petitioners did not want to consume the precious time of this Hon’ble Court by litigating the matter by filing the present petition. The intention of Petitioners was to get this issue resolved amicably and therefore, the Petitioners had submitted a representation dated 17-10-2017 with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Since no action has been taken in this regard in the last four months, Petitioners have no other option but to approach this Hon’ble Court in the interest of all. 10.

The petitioners have not filed any other petition, suit or

application regarding the matter in dispute before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court. GROUNDS A. Because as per Article 145(4) of the Constitution of India it is obligatory that all judgments by the Supreme Court shall be delivered in Open Court. Further, Section-153B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 & Section-327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also necessitate that the court proceedings must be held in an Open Court to which the public generally have access. Such an access unequivocally suggests that the court proceedings must be heard and seen by the public who includes interns, litigants and media correspondents. The non-usage of already installed Micsystem at the benches of Justices and at the place earmarked for Advocates to argue closes the doors of Open Court and infringesthe above mentioned Constitutional and Statutory rights of all. B. Because a Nine Judge Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. Vs. State of

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Maharashtra &Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1) established the importance of having Open Court in a democracy and publicity of Court Proceedings. The relevant paragraphs of aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below: “20. …...It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court-room. As Bentham has observed: "In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity". (Scott v. Scott (1911) All. E.R. 1, 30)””

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

“96. In India the position is not different. Public hearing of cases before courts is as fundamental to our democracy

and system of

justice as to any other country. That our legal system so understands it is quite easily demonstrable…” “103. …..A suppression of the publication of the report of a case conducted in open court, for a reason which has no merit, ex

facie

offends that freedom. Just as the denial without any reason to a person of the right to enter,a court is to deprive him of several fundamental freedoms, denial of the right to publish reports of a public trial is also to deny the freedom of the press which is included in the freedom of speech and expression…..” “130. ……….Hearing of proceedings in open Court undoubtedly tends to ensure untainted administration of justice and departure from that course may be permitted in exceptional circumstances, when the Court is either by statutory injunction compelled, or is in the exercise of its discretion satisfied, that unless the public are excluded from the courtroom, interests of justice may suffer irreparably. An order, for hearing of a trial 'in camera is only intended to prevent excessive publication of the proceedings of the Court, if such excessive publication may, it is apprehended, cause grave harm either to the public interest or to the interests of the parties or witnesses, which cannot be offset by the interest which it is the object of a trial in open Court to serve. Hearing in open Court of causes is of the utmost importance for maintaining confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice: it operates as a wholesome check upon judicial behavior as well as upon the conduct of the contending

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

parties and their witnesses. But hearing of a cause in public which is only to secure administration of justice untainted must yield to the paramount object of administration of justice. If excessive publicity itself operates as an instrument of injustice, the Court may not be slow, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do to put such restraint upon publicity as is necessary to secure the Court's primary object…..” “141. ……A Court of justice is a public forum. It is through publicity that the citizens are convinced that the Court renders evenhanded justice, and it is, therefore, necessary that the trial should be open to thepublic and there should be no restraint on the publication of the report of the Court proceedings. The publicity generates public confidence in the administration of justice. In rare and exceptional cases only, the Court may hold the trial behind closed doors, or may forbid the publication ofthe report of its proceedings during the pendency of the litigation.” The Principles laid down in the above mentioned landmark judgment of this Hon’ble Court must be followed and practiced in true letter and spirit for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. The House of Lords in the case of Scott Vs. Scott (1913 AC 417) held that “The hearing of a case in public may be, and often is, no doubt, painful, humiliating, or deterrent both to parties and witnesses, and in many cases, especially those of a criminal nature, the details may be so indecent as to tend to injure public morals, but all this is tolerated and endured, because it is felt that in public trial is to found, on the whole, the best security for the

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means for winning for it public confidence and respect.” “Lord Shaw of Dunfermline (p 476) criticised the decision of the lower court to hold a hearing in camera as constituting ‘a violation of that publicity in the administration of justice which is one of the surest guarantees of our liberties, and an attack upon the very foundations of public and private security’. Viscount Haldane LC (p 438) said that any judge faced with a demand to depart from the general rule must treat the question ‘as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity.” These observations have been reaffirmed by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Bank Mellat Vs. Her Majesty’s Treasury (2013) UKSC 38, among others. C. Because as per information obtained under reply dated 21.08.2018 to the RTI application dated 21.07.2017, the Mic system has been an inherent part of the Court Room Infrastructure and in existence since the time of inception of Supreme Court of India. The RTI reply also discloses that a considerable amount of public money has been incurred in the replacement and installation of the mic system in the court rooms of the Supreme Court of India. If such a system being an inherent part of court room infrastructure is not put to use for the benefit of all, it shall continue to hamper the administration of justice. D. Because the non-usage of Mic system in the court rooms denies Media Correspondents to have the reasonable and free access to the court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court and reporting the same

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

to the public at large. Media being the fourth pillar in a democracy, shoulders the nobel responsibility of creating awareness among the public at large. Such non-usage of Mic-system does not only infringethe Fundamental Right to Freedom of Press enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India but also defeats the principle of Open Court and Publicity of the Court Proceedings.This Hon’ble Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited &Ors. Vs. Union of India &Ors. (1985 1 SCC 641), through a Bench comprising Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice A.P. Sen and Justice E.S. Venkataramiah observed that Para 31-“In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in a developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. It is the primary duty of all the National Courts to uphold the Freedom of Press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate.” E. Because as per a report submitted by the sub-committee of the National Courtroom Management Systems (NCMS) on Court Development Planning. System (Infrastructure and Budgeting) headed by Justice BaddarDurez Ahmad, who has also been an

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Invitee Member of the E-committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India, sets out suggestions from various High Courts across the country, as well as suggestions from concerned subject matter experts and comparable global experience, on what may be considered minimum national common standards on Court Management Systems. While determining the importance of Mic system in Court Room Infrastructure, this report observed the following: “There should be provision for a sound amplification system with microphones on judge’s table so that the judge’s directions/ questions to lawyers and witnesses are clearly heard by them.” F. Because this Hon’ble Court has also observed while dealing with reference made under Article 317(1) No. 2 of 2008: In Re: Mehar Singh

Saini,

Chairman,

HPSC

&

Ors.

that

Para 5-“….The principles of public accountability and transparency in the functioning of the institution are essential for its proper governance. The necessity of sustenance of public confidence in the functioning of the Commission may be compared to the functions of judiciary in administration of justice which was spelt out by Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. V. Lannon (1968) 3 All ER 304

in

following

words:

Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking: ‘The Judge was biased’. The non-usage of Mic-system clearly defies the public confidence as interns, litigants and media correspondents are unable to observe the court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court. In such a

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

circumstance to generate public confidence, usage of installed Micsystem by Justices and Advocates becomes indispensable. G. Because Lord Chief Justice Hewart gave his opinion in R. Vs. Sussex Justices-(1924) 1 KB 256, which is heard often and practiced in the Legal

World,

that:

“Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly

be

seen

to

be

done”.

This Hon’ble Court has also recently observed this above mentioned opinion in the matter of Aravali Power Company Private Limited Vs. Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1262728/2017), in Para 23, to avoid doubt in the mind of the petitioner. In similar manner, to avoid doubts from the minds of all, the Micsystem must be put to use mandatorily in the interest of all when it is already installed in the courts rooms of this Hon’ble Court. H. Because the Mic System is being used as an inherent part of the Court Room Infrastructure across the different judicial systems of the World. This may be observed through the photographs of the International Court of Justice and UK Supreme Court enclosed herewith as Annexure-P4. I. Because as per Black Law Dictionary (2005 Edition), the meaning of “Open Court” is interpreted as “A sitting of Court at the transactions of which the public are free to be present”. This clearly establishes the right of public to have free and reasonable access to hear and watch the court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court otherwise there would be no use of public merely present in the court rooms.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

J. Because it is an undeniable fact that Central Government and State Governments are the biggest litigants in this Hon’ble Court wherein general public through media correspondents has Right to Knowthe submissions made by governments counsels on their behalf in order to safeguard their rights as observed in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428.Without usage of Mic-system in the court rooms, media correspondents are not getting the primary access to what such counsels are representing before this Hon’ble Court. PRAYER In the light of facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, it is humbly requested to this Hon’ble Court to grant the following reliefs: A. Issue the Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent to ensure the mandatory usage of already installed Mic-system at the benches of Hon’ble Justices and the place earmarked for Advocates to argue in the court rooms of the Supreme Court of India. B. Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice, Equity and Conscience. New Delhi Date Kumar Shanu Petitioner-in-Person D 5/13, Shivshakti Apartments, Sector-71, Noida, UP-201307 Mobile-9716805358