Eminent jurists Shanti Bhushan and P P Rao said the verdict was within the ambit of the provisions of the Constitution and temporary restraint from publication of court proceedings cannot be granted as a right and at the same time it would make the journalist to be careful in reporting legal issues.
Rao said that the verdict is not an unreasonable restriction on the media, as "it (media) does not have complete freedom and even the Constitution imposes restrictions on the rights of the people".
Bhushan agreed with Rao on the judgement but said such type of restriction would not have much impact as "generally no accused approaches the higher courts to restrain media from reporting his case."
However, he said, "Media should be very careful in reporting. It should not do wrong reporting otherwise it would amount to contempt of court.
"The reporters should be present during the proceedings and note down the points carefully and if they have any doubts or queries, they should ask the counsel of that case."
Rao, who had appeared for Press Council of India (PCI), also said, "there is nothing new in this judgment" while referring to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Bombay in which it had prohibited publication of oral evidence provided by a witness.
The said prohibition was for a temporary period of thirty days.
"Media should show self-restraint and practice self-regulation", Rao added. (MORE)
