Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday strongly criticized media reports, labeling them as "reckless," for falsely claiming he had refused an urgent hearing on police action against students protesting the NEET paper leak. The CJI clarified that no formal petition had been filed before the Supreme Court, only a mere representation. This statement came amidst a flurry of urgent listing requests, highlighting the need for accurate reporting regarding judicial proceedings.

What Happened?

CJI Surya Kant expressed significant displeasure over what he described as a "completely false statement" circulating in the media. He specifically pointed out reports suggesting that the Chief Justice had declined to list a matter concerning police action during the July 20 protests against the alleged NEET paper leak. The CJI emphasized that, as of Friday morning, no writ petition had been filed with the Supreme Court. Instead, the court had only received a representation, which could not be treated as a formal petition requiring an urgent hearing.

The controversy arose after a lawyer on Wednesday sought an urgent hearing regarding alleged police brutality against students protesting in Delhi on July 20. The protest, led by the Cockroach Janta Party, was a 'Chalo Sansad' march demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the reported NEET examination paper leak. The lawyer claimed to possess video evidence of the police action and urged for an immediate listing of the matter, citing the welfare of the students.

However, CJI Surya Kant declined the request to examine video footage at the mentioning stage, stating, "We are not interested in videos, we don't have time to watch... We don't want to watch videos." He reiterated this stance when the counsel persisted, advising them not to "waste our time." Separately, but on the same day, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued a significant directive. The Supreme Court barred the posting, reposting, or uploading of audio and video recordings of court proceedings on social media and other digital platforms without prior permission from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court or the respective Registrars General of the High Courts. This decision was made while addressing a plea concerning the misuse of live-streamed court proceedings and the circulation of court videos online, further underscoring the court's stance on controlled dissemination of judicial information.

Key Highlights

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant condemned media reports as "reckless" for falsely stating he refused an urgent hearing on NEET protest police action.
The CJI clarified that no formal writ petition challenging the police action had been filed with the Supreme Court, only a representation.
A lawyer had sought an urgent hearing on Wednesday, alleging police brutality against students during a July 20 protest in Delhi.
The protest, led by the Cockroach Janta Party, was against the alleged NEET paper leak and demanded the Union Education Minister's resignation.
CJI Surya Kant declined to examine video evidence of the alleged police brutality at the initial mentioning stage.
The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant's bench, also prohibited unauthorized sharing of court proceeding recordings on social media.
This directive aims to curb the alleged misuse and uncontrolled circulation of court videos on digital platforms.

Why Does This Matter?

This incident highlights the critical importance of accurate reporting and responsible journalism, especially when it concerns the judiciary. Misinformation can erode public trust in both the media and the judicial system, leading to unnecessary confusion and potential misinterpretations of court proceedings. The CJI's strong rebuke serves as a reminder that the judicial process operates on specific legal frameworks, such as the filing of formal petitions, and representations do not hold the same legal weight for urgent listings. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity and order of court functions.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's directive against the unauthorized sharing of court proceeding videos underscores a broader concern about the controlled dissemination of judicial information in the digital age. While transparency is valued, the court recognizes the potential for misuse, misrepresentation, or decontextualization of court recordings on social media. This move aims to protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings and ensure that public understanding of court matters is based on official and verified sources, thereby safeguarding both the public and the institution from misleading narratives.