Gagging lawyers from speaking to the press about their pending cases would amount to muzzling the media and depriving the public their fundamental right to information, 15 eminent persons, including writers and senior journalists, told the Supreme Court.

They have filed two intervention applications against a February 6 order in which a Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra recorded its decision to examine the possibility of imposing curbs on advocates and litigants airing their views in the media about pending cases.

The February 6 order came on back-to-back contempt of court petitions filed by Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal and the Centre against noted civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan for his tweets on February 1 in connection with a pending case filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao as interim CBI Director.

Senior journalists like N. Ram, Arun Shourie, author Arundhati Roy, activist Aruna Roy and former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah have argued that any restraint on lawyers and litigants from commenting on sub-judice cases would amount to shackling the media.

They said any such restraint by the court would have “serious consequences on the Freedom of the Press, its rights under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and its ability to inform the people about important public interest issues pending in the courts”.

The application filed by Mr. Shourie and Mr. Ram and three other senior journalists question the very logic of a gag on discussing pending cases in public.

“Consider the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa which took 20 years to be decided or the Ram Janma Bhoomi case which has been going on for decades… Can it be maintained that for 20 years no one could talk about the facts and issues involved in the Jayalalithaa case or for decades in the case of the Rama Janma Bhoomi dispute?” they asked the Supreme Court.

Besides, they said the “best information” about a case would come from the lawyer or litigant who is directly involved in the case. The media cannot prop up a “bystander” and expect him to give authoritative information about a case. The apprehension that the views of the lawyer or litigant may be based is taken care when the person’s involvement in the case is informed to the public.

Another fear that judges would be influenced by what the lawyers tell the media is also unfounded. Judges hear the same lawyer in court in the case and their repeating in the media what they have already said in court would hardly influence a judge.

They have contended that a gag would “have a seriously deleterious impact on not merely the freedom of speech of lawyers and litigants but also on the right of the people and civil society to be informed about pending court proceedings which are of public interest.”

They argued that Mr. Bhushan’s tweets were based on the information available to him in the public domain. The tweets did not contain any disparaging remarks about Mr. Venugopal or the government.