Read Time: 09 minutes

The Bombay High Court recently in a case noted that assessment of evidence in a court proceeding is not a part of reporters’ job and is the work of a Court and only a Court.

The matter before the court was that of an Interim Application filed by the Defendant (one Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin) raising a 'matter of very serious concern' as  previously the newspaper daily Udaipur Times, did impermissible reporting of the actual trial related to the Dawoodi Bohra community before the Bombay High Court.

The Defendant had alleged that despite an express direction, one Taher Fakhruddin Saheb made available or gave access to trial records of a case between the parties to 'The Udaipur Times' although the trial was incomplete.

The Single Bench of GS Patel while disposing of the Interim Application noted that,

“Udaipur Times, had, in my view, gone beyond what is legitimately permissible in its reportage of a part of the cross-examination in this matter. To be sure, in proceedings in an open Court system, fair reporting cannot be restrained, except perhaps in the most extraordinary circumstances, or where there are valid issues of privacy and security.”

The Bench further observed that,

“Both Respondents have tendered apologies, given undertakings and expressed regret. I accept those apologies and undertakings.”

The Bench made some significant observation regarding court reporting of an ongoing trial.

1. There is a limit to what a news report can say and do. This may be a very thin red line, but it does exist. Specifically, fair reporting of court proceedings does not extend to comments on the quality of evidence or arguments before a Court before judgment is delivered. Assessing those, finding them good or bad is no part of a reporter’s job. It is the work of a Court and only a Court. This task requires special skills.
    
2. Judges and lawyers are trained in the matter of appreciation of the entire body of evidence in a trial. It is often described as an art. A reporter or commentator, whether a journalist, columnist or a lay person, is certainly entitled to critically examine the resultant judgment. He or she is perfectly at liberty to critique or criticize that judgment, in terms that may even be fierce, harsh and unsparing.
    
3. What no reporter or any other commentator should do is deliver for public consumption a view on the quality of evidence, that is to say, its evidentiary value before judgment is pronounced. Only the court can do that; and that is firmly and exclusively the prerogative of the Court.
    
4. Simply noting a particular question and answer might also be acceptable, or at least not objectionable. But the line is crossed when such a reproduction is accompanied by what is effectively a judgment on merits, a statement that purports to assess the evidentiary value and weight of the cross-examination in a matter yet pending before Court; for instance, by suggesting that some part of the cross-examination was repetitive or ineffective or futile. That is an assessment that no court reporter can do.
    
5. When he or she says that a particular line of cross-examination was ineffective or purposeless, a journalist is literally pronouncing on the merits of the evidence. But no one knows that yet. Not even the judge. He is yet a distance from assessing whether any particular piece of evidence is or is not weighty. Once all the evidence is in, then collated, presented, and then submissions are made on what ought to be a correct evaluation of the evidence, then, and only then, will there be an assessment of the evidence. This is why a fleeting impression by a journalist of the value of evidence is entirely beyond his or her legitimate scope.
    
6. It is possible that the understanding of the process of appreciation of evidence, with which lawyers and judges are familiar, may not be obvious to others who watch or follow a trial. If courts should not gag or silence the press, then, equally, the press must be reasonably circumspect about entering a territory that is exclusively the preserve of a court.

Thereby, concluding the observations the Bench noted that,

“I prefer, therefore, to view the Udaipur Times as an inadvertent error. Everyone makes mistakes. Not every mistake merits strong action by a court. I believe the press and courts each have their roles to play. Each must respect the other’s duties and responsibilities, always careful not to cross the dividing lines.”

[Case Title - Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin vs Taher Fakhruddin Saheb, 2021]