Never write on anything sub judice, CJI Kant’s advice

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday, December 12, 2025, advised against publishing articles on court cases that could create an “impact” outside, while also assuring that judges are immune to narratives aimed at generating publicity and swaying opinions.

“Never write anything by court order. Why should an impression be created? You can be assured that we do not accept ‘answers’ from outside the courtroom,” Chief Justice Kant verbally told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Mr. Mehta was furious about the “simultaneous, narrative-making” that some “tabloids” were engaging in about court cases. The law officer said these articles inevitably appeared close to the day of the hearing.

The verbal exchange took place in the backdrop of a newspaper article on Friday about a pregnant woman, Sunali Khatun, and her eight-year-old son being pushed into Bangladesh. The court’s nudge saw the Center arrange for the mother and son’s return to India on “humanitarian grounds”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of West Bengal, who is currently dealing with the mother-son duo, tried to convince the court that comments on judicial orders and proceedings are part of public discourse across the world.

Supreme Court says press coverage of court observations cannot be stopped

“But the half-truths and distorted facts conveyed by misinformed individuals through their writings and comments are influencing public perception,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi said on the bench that judges are “completely immune from publicity” as long as these narratives do not affect the lives of individuals.

Chief Justice Kant stated that the authors should wait for the court decision to be announced and then provide constructive criticism. In this way, the court can also make improvements in the administration of justice.

Mr. Mehta found nothing wrong in the frank and level-headed interview. “There’s nothing wrong with reporting an issue, because you’re making what’s important public. But if you put your opinion forward and try to inject a justification, which isn’t actually true…” he explained.

However, Mr Sibal said ‘comment was part of freedom of expression as long as it was not attributed to motives’. “It is not disrespectful to comment unless the motive is attributed,” Mr. Sibal said.

This is not the first time the high court has seen arguments over restrictions on media coverage of judicial proceedings.

In 2018, the late Fali Nariman had advised the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi that the media should not be banned from covering the petitions and pleas on the grounds that they contained scandalous allegations.

In 2012, a five-judge Bench headed by the then Chief Justice, Justice SH Kapadia, initiated suo motu proceedings to frame guidelines on court reporting based on 11 complaints by senior lawyers alleging misquotes by reporters in the court. However, several senior lawyers, including Mr Nariman and Soli Sorabjee, opposed the idea of ​​the court framing general guidelines for the press.

Neriman Bey, who was called to assist the court, objected: “We need to expand freedom, not restrict it. As judges, we must be responsible. I feel great concern. I do not want media freedom to go away.”

As a result, the Supreme Court finally concluded that it was indeed not possible to establish universal guidelines regarding court interviewing.