JOURNALISTS being instructed to leave a courtroom before the hearing of a constitutional matter prompts concern about media access to judicial proceedings. A High Court bench on April 20 asked journalists to leave the courtroom when it heard a writ petition that challenged the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Act 2026 and sought the maintenance of a status quo on the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025, which the parliament repealed. The matter under review was related to functional independence of the judiciary with the establishment of the Supreme Court Secretariat that the 2025 ordinance enabled. The parliament repealed the 2025 ordinance amid opposition, inside and outside the parliament. Many jurists have expressed concern that the repeal of the ordinance would allow for an executive influence on the judiciary. Journalists are professionally meant to keep the public informed of a matter of such significant public interests. And, no access of journalists to judicial proceedings means that they are barred from performing their duties.
The High Court and subordinate courts are public courts. And restrictions on media access to the court should not arise. The High Court decision, however, came after a television report alleged to have misquoted the chief justice and given inaccurate information on a matter discussed in the Appellate Division. In what follows, the Supreme Court registrar issued a notice restricting entry to court buildings from January 21, 2026, limiting access to lawyers and their assistants, and litigants, citing security grounds and disruption caused by unauthorised entry. There have recently been several untoward incidents on court premises, including factional clashes among lawyers of various political camps, leading to the prolonged confinement of judges in courtrooms and disruption in routine activities. The security concern and fears that disinformation may stem from unregulated access to court are more than justified. Many journalists have already raised concern and the attorney general has also assured that the authorities concerned are already informed of the matter. The court could also consider working out a code of conduct for media and other observers of court proceedings to prevent disinformation as a complete restriction could impede the flow of information and stop journalists from discharging their professional responsibilities.
The High Court often serves as the primary avenue for seeking public relief, which became evident in the 2024 uprising when the use of lethal force and the killing of unarmed protesters were challenged by court directives. Given this role, the High Court is expected to reconsider its decision on media access to court proceedings and, rather, consider enforcing a code of conduct for journalists and observers to prevent disinformation and address security concern.
