In News
- Bombay High Court’s controversial guidelines practically gagging the media from reporting on cases pertaining to sexual harassment at workplace have been challenged in the Supreme Court, alleging that the directions are a “death blow” to freedom of speech and expression.
About
- G.S. Patel guidelines: The guidelines were formed by Justice G.S. Patel of the High Court ostensibly to protect the identities of the parties in a case under the POSH Act.
What were the Guidelines?
- No Mention: Neither the names of parties nor their personally identifiable information should be mentioned anywhere in any court order.
- Not to be uploaded: Orders and judgments on merits will not be uploaded. All orders and judgments will be delivered in private, i.e. in chamber or in camera.
- Sealed: Entire record to be kept sealed and not be given to any person without court order. Fresh filings to be sealed also.
- All hearings: to be held in chamber or in camera. No online facility. Only physical appearance. Support staff must leave the court.
- Not to be revealed in public domain: Unless there is specific court order, the orders will not be revealed in public domain. At best, only an anonymised version of the order will be released.
- Prohibition: Both sides, parties and advocates are prohibited from releasing any order or judgment contents to the media. Witnesses must sign non-disclosure agreements.
- Contempt of court: Any breach of guidelines is a contempt of court.
Issues/ Challenges
- Blanket bar: It includes a blanket bar on parties and advocates from sharing records, including orders and judgments, with the media.
- Orders in such cases will not be uploaded on a court’s website, and the press will not report on a judgment passed under the Act without the court’s permission.
- Article 19: It is a “death blow” to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19.
- Right to information: Any injunction on the right of the people to know true and accurate facts is an encroachment on their right to information.
- Deter survivors from approaching courts: HC order may have a “ripple effect” and deter survivors from approaching courts as well as setting a dangerous precedent for trial cases.
- Undue protection: It will legitimise undue protection to sexual offenders in gross violation of principles of open court, natural justice and fundamental rights of survivors.
- Swapnil Tripathi judgment: HC order violates the principles of open court as enshrined in the Swapnil Tripathi judgment.
- Termination: Such an order cannot be passed in a suit for compensation due to wrongful and retaliatory termination.
- To suppress women’s voices: it will help “powerful corporations to suppress women’s voices”.
Way Forward
- A well-informed citizenry governs itself better: Right to free speech can be curbed only if it interferes with the administration of justice.
- Public discourse: In matters of social justice and women empowerment, public discourse plays a crucial role in shaping the nature of legal entitlements that are delivered to women.
Source: TH
Previous article
Western Disturbances
Next article
Silver Line Project