Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. File | Photo credit: ANI
India’s Chief Justice Surya Kant on Friday (Dec 12, 2025) warned against publishing articles on court cases that could create an “impression” to outsiders, while assuring that judges are immune to narratives aimed at creating publicity and raising opinion.
“Never write about anything before the court. Why should one give an impression? You can be sure that we do not accept ‘plea’ outside the courtroom,” Chief Justice Kant addressed Advocate General Tushar Mehta orally.
Mr. Mehta was incensed at the “contemporary, narrative construction” that certain “tabloids” attach to cases of subordination of the judiciary. These articles, the legal official said, inevitably appear near the date of the court hearing.
The verbal exchange came against the backdrop of a newspaper article on Friday about a pregnant woman, Sunali Khatun, and her eight-year-old son, who were pushed to Bangladesh. The court quipped that the Center had arranged for the mother and son to return to India on “humanitarian grounds”.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of West Bengal, which is currently taking care of the mother-son duo, tried to convince the court that comments on court orders and proceedings are part of public discourse across the world.
Can’t stop media reports on court observations, says Supreme Court
“But imperfect truths and distorted facts given by ill-informed people through their writings and comments influence public perception,” Chief Justice Kant observed.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Bench said that judges are “completely immune from publicity” as long as the narratives do not affect the lives of individuals.
Chief Justice Kant observed that writers should wait for the judgment to be pronounced by the court and then engage in constructive criticism. In this way, the court could also improve the administration of justice.
Mr. Mehta found nothing wrong with clear, balanced reporting. “Reporting a matter, there’s nothing wrong with that because you’re making public what matters. But if you push your point and try to insert a motive that’s not factually true…,” he explained.
But Mr Sibal said the comments were part of free speech as long as they did not impute motives. “As long as motives are not attributed, it is not sacrilege to comment,” Mr. Sibal said.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has witnessed discussions on the restriction of media coverage of court proceedings.
In 2018, the late Fali Nariman advised the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, to bar the media from reporting the petitions and pleas on the grounds that they contained scandalous allegations.
In 2012, a five-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice Justice SH Kapadia initiated suo motu proceedings to frame guidelines for court reporting on 11 complaints by senior advocates who alleged journalists were misquoted in court. However, a number of leading advocates, including Mr Nariman and the likes of Soli Sorabjee, disagreed with the idea of the court laying down blanket guidelines for the press.
“We don’t need to limit freedom, we need to expand it. We also need to be responsible as judges. I am very worried. I don’t want the freedom of the media to disappear,” objected Mr. Nariman, who was called to assist the court.
As a result, the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the development of universal guidelines for court reporting was indeed impracticable.
Published – 12 Dec 2025 20:55 IST
