TAHER FAKHRUDDIN SAHEB Vs. MUFADDAL BURHANUDDIN SAIFUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are now two Affidavits each by the two Respondents. There is also a recent Affidavit by the Defendant/Applicant. For completeness, a copy of this recent Affidavit is to be served on the Advocates for both the Respondents.

(2.) Having read these Affidavits and considering their contents, I do not think it is either necessary or prudent to enlarge the controversy in this Interim Application. Both Respondents have tendered apologies, given undertakings and expressed regret. I accept those apologies and undertakings. I am also satisfied that the advice rendered by Dr Saraf to the 2nd Respondent more than adequately serves the purpose.

(3.) The 2nd Respondent, Udaipur Times, had, in my view, gone beyond what is legitimately permissible in its reportage of a part of the cross-examination in this matter. To be sure, in proceedings in an open Court system, fair reporting cannot be restrained, except perhaps in the most extraordinary circumstances, or where there are valid issues of privacy and security. Indeed, with modern communications technology, the nature of reporting -- often from the well of the Court itself -- has radically changed: we often now see updates going out every few minutes on digital media.