1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 571 OF 2010 Menaka Rao. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.G. Merchant i/b. Swapnil Wagh for the Applicant. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 05th FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. :- This application is moved urgently as according to Mr. Merchant, the Applicant, who is a Journalist by profession was trying to cover a criminal case which is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. During such coverage, subject application was made because the learned Judge had prevented Press Reporters and Media from covering the proceedings by remaining present in Court. That was at the stage of hearing of the Remand Application arising out of C.R.No.22/2010, registered by L.T. Marg Police Station. 2. It is not necessary to go into the allegations and the offences alleged, as the limited grievance made is that the application made by the Petitioner was as a Journalist requesting the Trial Court to uphold the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by Article 2 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Media or Press does not claim any independent right in this case but states that freedom of Press is a part of the citizens’ fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The Court proceedings are, therefore, open for members of public and they have access thereto. Just as members of public can enter a Court Hall and without causing any inconvenience and disturbance, watch and cover the proceedings, in the same manner, the Press has been seeking such a right and which has been unnecessarily curtailed by the Magistrate concerned, is the grievance before me. 3. Without entering into any larger controversy and when even the learned Public Prosecutor has taken a fair and reasonable stand that I proceed to quash and set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Applicant and other Journalists can enter the Court Hall and cover the proceedings but without causing any inconvenience to the working and functioning of the Court. Needless to state that the Press persons will not make any audio visual recording of the proceedings during their presence in the Court Hall nor cause any obstruction and hindrance to the working and functioning of the Court. Needless to further add that the Press persons who are present in Court can make their personal notes without causing any obstruction or interference to the working of the Court. 3 4. All concerned and more particularly the press need not be reminded of their duly and obligation in law. In AIR 1982 SC page 6 (Smt. Prabha Dutt V/s. Union of India & Ors.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations :- “ Before considering the merits of the application, we would like to observe that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of the Press, is not an absolute right, nor indeed does it confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such for example, as there is under Section 161 (2) of the Criminal P.C.” 5. The Criminal Application is disposed off in the above terms. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 4