Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21, 129 and 215 - Reporting of matters, which are sub-judice - Postponement of reporting - Rights of the citizens and the media - Balancing of Article 19(1)(a) rights vis-a-vis Article 21, the scope of Article 19(2) in the context of the law regulating contempt of court and the scope of Article 129/Article 215 - "Order of Postponement" of publication - its nature and Object - Orders of postponement of publications/publicity in appropriate cases, keeping in mind the timing (the stage at which it should be ordered), its duration and the right of appeal to challenge such orders is just a neutralizing device, when no other alternative such as change of venue or postponement of trial is available, evolved by courts as a preventive measure to protect the press from getting prosecuted for contempt and also to prevent administration of justice from getting perverted or prejudiced - Width of the postponement orders - Given that the postponement orders curtail the freedom of expression of third parties, such orders have to be passed only in cases in which there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial or to the proper administration of justice which is "the end and purpose of all laws" - However, such orders of postponement should be ordered for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the publication - The test is that the publication (actual and not planned publication) must create a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial - The principle underlying postponement orders is that it prevents possible contempt - The postponement order is not a punitive measure, but a preventive measure - Orders of postponement, in the absence of any other alternative measures such as change of venue or postponement of trial, satisfy the requirement of justification under Article 19(2) and they also help the Courts to balance conflicting societal interests of right to know vis-a-vis another societal interest in fair administration of justice - Excessive prejudicial publicity leading to usurpation of functions of the Court not only interferes with administration of justice which is sought to be protected under Article 19(2), it also prejudices or interferes with a particular legal proceedings - Right to approach the High Court/Supreme Court - The court may grant preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to a fair trial and Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21 - Freedom of expression - Constitutionalization of free speech - Comparative law: differences between the US and other common-law experiences - Discussed.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.4 - Reporting of judicial proceedings - Inaccuracy in reporting of court proceedings - When contempt - Held: Only if it can be said on the facts of a particular case, to amount to substantial interference with the administration of justice. 

Pending legal proceedings between the parties before this Court, one of the news channels flashed on TV the details of a proposal communicated only inter parties for purpose of negotiation and which was not meant for public circulation. The said incident was brought to the notice of this Court which then requested both the sides to make written application in the form of I.A. so that appropriate orders could be passed by this Court with regard to reporting of matters, which are sub-judice.

IA Nos. 4 and 5 came to be filed by the appellant praying that i) appropriate guidelines be framed with regard to reporting (in the electronic and print media) of matters which are sub-judice in a court including public disclosure of documents forming part of court proceedings and ii) that appropriate directions be issued as to the manner and extent of publicity to be given by the print/electronic media of pleadings/ documents filed in a proceeding in court which is pending and not yet adjudicated upon. Vide IA No. 10, the respondent also averred that in view of the said incident, this Court should give appropriate directions or frame guidelines. 

Important questions of public importance thus arose for consideration with regard to the rights of the citizens and the media-whether guidelines for the media be laid down? If so, whether they should be self-regulatory? Or whether this Court should restate the law or declare the law under Article 141 on balancing of Article 19(1)(a) rights vis-a-vis Article 21, the scope of Article 19(2) in the context of the law regulating contempt of court and the scope of Article 129/Article 215.