TASK 3.

6
Research and provide good
applicable judicial precedents
dealing with restrictions on
writing or speaking for or in
respect of sub-judice
matters. Please study national
and international perspectives
and it may relate to any field
of law. 

[1]
Judicial precedents dealing with restrictions on writing or
speaking for or in respect of sub-judice matters:

 It is only desirable that the Supreme Court should draw a clear

distinction between matters that are simply in court, and those
that are subjudice and are likely to invite contempt charges.
The leading case on the subject (Naresh V State of
Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1.10.11.) decided by the
Supreme Court holds that, where the ends of justice would be
defeated by a public trial, a court has an inherent jurisdiction
to hold the trial in camera. Further, the Supreme Court has
held that the power to hold the trial in camera must include the
power to hold a part of the trial in camera or to prohibit
excessive publication of the proceedings held at such trial.
 In Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, the High Court held
that the ‘sub-judice rule’ in criminal cases (i.e., the rule that
the media must not influence pending cases) begins even
before the case is filed in court, i.e., when the case is still
under investigation by the police. The judgment marks a
significant departure from the law as it has stood in the
country since 1971.

[2]
  In Ram Dayal vs. State of UP, popularly known as Umaria
Pamphlet case, AIR 1978 SC 921., the Supreme Court
indicating the parameter of fair criticism has held that if the
criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of
justice or undermine the confidence which the public rightly
response in the courts of law as court of justice, the criticism
would cease to be fair reasonable criticism as contemplated by
section 5 but would scandalize courts and substantially
interfere with administration of justice.
 In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal
Gandhi, 1997, the Supreme Court held that a trial by
electronic media, press or by way of public agitation is anti-
thesis to the rule of law and can lead to a miscarriage of
justice.

International perspectives:

 Commenting publicly on cases under judicial review is

generally deemed unacceptable in England and Wales, Ireland,
New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel, and can result in
contempt of court actions. This is especially true in criminal

[3]
 instances, when publicly discussing cases under judicial review
may constitute a violation of due process.
 Prior to 1981, the phrase was appropriately used in English law
to indicate material that, if published, might prejudice court
proceedings. Because of the implementation of the Contempt
of Court Act in 1981, sub judice is no longer relevant to
journalists. A substantial danger of serious prejudice can only
be produced by a media report while proceedings are ongoing,
according to Section 2 of the Act. When there is an arrest, an
oral charge, the issuance of a warrant, or the issuance of a
summons, the proceedings become active.
 In the United States, there are First Amendment worries about
restricting the freedom to free expression, which precludes
such stringent limits on comments made in court. However,
state rules of professional conduct governing attorneys
frequently limit an attorney's ability to make out-of-court
statements on an ongoing case. Furthermore, there are still
safeguards in place for criminal defendants, and many
convicted in the midst of a media circus have had their
convictions reversed in order to have a more fair trial. Sam
Sheppard's murder conviction is one example.

[4]