Justice Challa Kodandaram of Telangana High Court on Monday decided to hear the broader aspect of freedom of press raised in a writ petition, which sought permission for coverage of secretariat demolition by media, after commencement of regular courts.
As the petition came up for hearing, Advocate General B.S. Prasad told the court that government had decided to take the media on a guided tour to the demolition work of secretariat buildings. Earlier, the government had opposed the prayer of the petitioner that journalists should be given a free hand in covering the demolition of secretariat buildings.
The AG had also questioned, during the previous hearing, maintainability of the writ petition stating that it was filed by a media house and not an individual. The petitioner’s counsel Vasireddy Naveen, however, had been contending that Supreme Court had already given a verdict observing that a company can also be a petitioner and there was no bar on that if it involved issue of fundamental rights.
Mr. Naveen on Monday filed an interim application petition before the court seeking permission to implead Telugu TV news channel V6 editor Ankam Ravi and its Bureau Chief G. Sampath as the petitioners in the case. The AG appealed to the judge to close the writ petition stating that the main relief of permission for coverage of the demolition work by the media was granted by the government.
However, the petitioner’s lawyer opposed it stating that journalists were not given full freedom to cover the demolition work and the freedom of press continued to be affected due to government’s decision. The government continued its restrictions by not giving complete liberty to the media to cover the demolition work, he said.
Passing the order to hear the petition after commencement of regular courts, Justice Challa Kodandaram said the petition was related to freedom of press. It was about specifically denying access to media to a particular place. This matter required elaborate consideration, the judge observed.
There was vast material related to case laws on the issue and it required to be studied, analysed and adjudiciated for future guidance, the judge said. While the petitioner had to establish their fundamental right of freed of press was violated, the government needed to demonstrate reasonable restrictions were required to be imposed by the State in such matters, the order said.
