A bench flagged the seriousness of the episode, which occurred in a courtroom while Justice B R Gavai was presiding, and underscored that such conduct undermines the dignity of the institution and endangers those present. Justice Gavai is a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, not a former Chief Justice of India. The court asked the Centre and the apex bar body to place suggestions on record covering access control, courtroom conduct, and deterrent measures, while also calling for a standard operating procedure to guide media reporting when disruptions or security incidents occur.
The court’s intervention places a spotlight on the balance between open justice and safety in a system that prides itself on public access. Courtrooms routinely host advocates, litigants, interns, researchers and members of the public. Judges noted that any lapse can escalate quickly, particularly in high-profile matters that attract crowds and heightened emotions. The bench indicated that proposals should be practical, proportionate and respectful of the court’s open character.
The direction to frame a media protocol reflects concern about how such incidents are reported and amplified. Judges observed that unstructured coverage can fuel misinformation, sensationalise individual conduct, or compromise ongoing proceedings. The court asked for norms that protect accuracy and restraint without curbing legitimate reporting, signalling a desire to set expectations rather than impose censorship.
Security in Indian court complexes is split across multiple layers, typically involving local police, court security staff and registry protocols. Over the years, courts have added metal detectors, bag checks and identity passes, though implementation varies by complex and courtroom. Senior lawyers have long argued that peak-hour congestion, porous entry points and inconsistent enforcement dilute these measures. The latest incident has renewed calls for standardised screening and clearer accountability.
Legal experts say deterrence must go hand in hand with courtroom management. Clear signage on prohibited items, swift response teams within courtrooms, and visible consequences for misconduct are seen as essential. Some advocate for designated marshals trained to de-escalate disturbances without disrupting proceedings, while others caution against turning courtrooms into heavily policed spaces that intimidate litigants.
The Supreme Court Bar Association, representing thousands of advocates, occupies a pivotal role in shaping norms of conduct. Past advisories from bar bodies have stressed professional responsibility and decorum, but enforcement often depends on peer pressure and disciplinary mechanisms that move slowly. The court’s request positions the association as a partner in crafting workable rules, including guidance for advocates on managing clients and supporters inside court premises.
The Centre’s role is expected to cover administrative coordination and funding for infrastructure upgrades. Uniform standards across states could address disparities between newer court complexes and older buildings that were not designed for modern security needs. Technology-led solutions, such as access cards with time-bound permissions and CCTV coverage integrated with command centres, are also under discussion in judicial circles, though privacy safeguards remain a concern.
On media norms, editors and legal correspondents acknowledge the challenge of reporting disruptions without magnifying them. Courts have, in other contexts, issued advisories on reporting sub judice matters and protecting identities. A narrowly tailored SOP could set benchmarks for verification, context and restraint when incidents involve security or alleged misconduct in courtrooms, helping avoid speculation and trial-by-media.