Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Supreme Court may curb advocates from speaking on cases

Topics Covered:

  1. Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
  2. Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability.


Supreme Court may curb advocates from speaking on cases


What to study?

For Prelims and Mains: Need for monitoring, should it be completely stopped and institutional and other measures necessary to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.


Context: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the possibility of imposing curbs on advocates airing their views in the media about pending cases and the judges handling them.



The issue came before the court during a hearing on contempt petitions filed by the government and the Attorney General of India against civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan.


Why impose curbs on advocates?

  1. It is often alleged that some advocates do it to gain media attention. Some lawyers even used air time to attack judges, whose code of conduct did not allow them to go public.
  2. Some lawyers rush to the media as soon as their petition was filed. While the petition may contain all manner of allegations, and was even likely to be later withdrawn in court, the damage, however, had been done by that time.


Murthukrishnan Vs Madras HC case:

  1. In the above said case, the Supreme Court had criticised lawyers attributing “political colour” to judges in important cases. Such acts amounted to denigrating the judiciary.
  2. Such acts amount to contempt of court but this power was a ‘Brahmastra’, only meant to be rarely used.



Freedom carries with it a responsibility. The judiciary and honest judges should be protected.


Sources: the hindu.