How should courts balance freedom of the press with requests for gag orders in sensitive cases?

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring transparency and accountability. However, in sensitive cases, courts may receive requests for gag orders to prevent media reporting that could prejudice ongoing investigations or trials. Balancing these interests is crucial for upholding both fair trial rights and press freedom.

• Assessing Public Interest vs. Fair Trial: Courts must evaluate whether media coverage poses a real risk to the fairness of the trial or investigation, weighing this against the public's right to know.
• Applying the Principle of Least Restriction: Any gag order should be narrowly tailored—restricting only what is necessary to protect the legal process, rather than imposing a blanket ban on reporting.
• Judicial Discretion and Reasoned Orders: Courts should provide clear, reasoned judgments explaining why a gag order is required, ensuring transparency in the exercise of judicial discretion.
• Temporary and Reviewable Orders: Gag orders, if issued, should be temporary and subject to periodic review to prevent undue restriction of press freedom.
• Reference to Legal Provisions: Courts often rely on provisions like Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of fair trial and public order.
• Encouraging Responsible Reporting: Instead of gag orders, courts can remind the media of ethical guidelines and the importance of not publishing unverified or prejudicial information.
• Seeking Alternatives: Measures such as in-camera proceedings, witness protection, or postponement of reporting may be considered as alternatives to complete gag orders.