By no means write on something sub judice, CJI Kant’s recommendation

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday (December 12, 2025) suggested towards the publication of articles on sub judice instances which can create an “impression” exterior, whereas on the identical time assuring that judges are resistant to narratives aimed to generate publicity and drive opinion.

“By no means write on something sub judice. Why ought to one create an impression? You could be assured that we don’t settle for ‘pleadings’ from exterior the courtroom,” Chief Justice Kant addressed Solicitor-Normal Tushar Mehta orally.

Mr. Mehta was indignant concerning the “concurrent, narrative constructing” that sure “tabloids” interact in about sub judice instances. These articles, the legislation officer mentioned, inevitably seem proximate to the day of the courtroom listening to.

The verbal alternate got here within the backdrop of a newspaper article on Friday a couple of pregnant girl, Sunali Khatun, and her eight-year-old son, who had been pushed into Bangladesh. The courtroom’s nudge noticed the Middle organize the return of the mom and son to India on “humanitarian grounds”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, showing for the State of West Bengal, which is at present caring for the mother-son duo, tried to steer the courtroom that commentary on judicial orders and proceedings had been a part of the general public discourse globally.

Can’t cease media reviews on courtroom observations, says Supreme Court docket

“However half-baked truths and distorted information given by ill-informed folks by means of their writing and commenting have an effect on public notion,” Chief Justice Kant noticed.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, mentioned judges had been “fully resistant to publicity” so long as these narratives didn’t have an effect on the lives of people.

Chief Justice Kant remarked that writers ought to attend until the pronouncement of judgment by the courtroom, after which interact in constructive criticism. This fashion, the courtroom might additionally make enhancements in justice administration.

Mr. Mehta discovered nothing unsuitable in clear, level-headed reportage. “Reporting a matter, nothing unsuitable with that, since you are bringing to the general public area that issues. However for those who thrust your opinion and attempt to infuse a motive, which isn’t factually true…,” he defined.

However Mr. Sibal mentioned ‘commentary was a part of free speech as long as they didn’t impute motives. “So long as motives will not be ascribed, it isn’t sacrilege to remark,” Mr. Sibal mentioned.

This isn’t the primary time the highest courtroom has witnessed discussions about placing curbs on the media reporting of judicial proceedings.

In 2018, the late Fali Nariman had suggested then Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi towards prohibiting media from reporting petitions and pleas on the bottom they contained scandalous allegations.

In 2012, a five-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the time, Justice SH Kapadia, had suo motu launched proceedings to border pointers on courtroom reporting based mostly on 11 complaints from senior advocates claiming they had been misquoted by the reporters within the courtroom. Nonetheless, a galaxy of senior advocates, together with Mr. Nariman and the likes of Soli Sorabjee, had disagreed with the concept of ​​the courtroom framing across-the-board pointers for the press.

“We don’t have to curb however broaden the liberty. We too should be accountable as judges. I’ve an amazing apprehension. I are not looking for freedom of the media to go,” Mr. Nariman, who was known as on to help the courtroom, had objected.

Because of this, the Supreme Court docket had lastly concluded that framing common pointers on courtroom reportage was certainly unfeasible.