An unexpected positive result amidst tragedy for NLU Jodhpur students and alums yesterday, who mounted a campaign against media both national and international, which had wrongly re-reported and sensationalised a student Pranita Mehta’s accidental drowning as a daredevil selfie gone wrong.

, this was Legally India, circa 2009”) Little could I have predicted where this would go, when I first landed in Mumbai nearly seven years ago after having knocked together one of the worst-designed websites ever loaded by man or woman…

The Supreme Court legal correspondent accreditation rules were changed to enforce stricter dress codes, and limits on permissible entry spaces, on journalists reporting the Supreme Court’s proceedings.

Defamation will no longer be a jailable offence under which journalists may be charged for their reportage, if the Foundation of Media Professionals’ (FMP) constitutional challenge to India’s criminal defamation provisions wins in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the central government and the UP government on a PIL seeking CBI probe into the killing of journalist Jagendra Singh allegedly at the behest of UP minister Ram Murti Verma. The apex court vacation bench headed by Justice MY Eqbal issued notice on a PIL a...

Correction: It has come to our attention that the below story, which we syndicated from a wire service without a thorough fact check, has been misreported by us and other media. Newslaundry has written that while Samuel’s bail was cancelled by the court on the morning of 10 November, he was granted ...

Kerala Governor and former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam today told journalists to ensure that they report court cases after reading the judgments. “First get the copy of the judgment… these days in the Supreme Court, it’s available on the internet after two or three hours. Then read the judgm...

The Bombay high court has served a show cause contempt notice on the Mumbai Mirror for reporting a litigant’s allegation made in court earlier this year that a judge hearing was corrupt.

So, Legally India sometimes gets accidentally addressed mail making us privy to some of the less public proposals law firms receive.

We are trying an experiment in how legal journalism can become sustainable and remain independent. Please help make magic happen!

The Allahabad High Court (HC) and a Lucknow district court cleared Supreme Court Cases (SCC) publisher EBC to publicise its earlier court win.

Exclusive: The Indian Express and Pioneer newspapers will carry front-page apologies for misreporting court proceedings, after yesterday’s hearing in the Supreme Court’s (SC) suo motu contempt petition against the two papers.

{youtube}Po8iuvy_Q9w|450|320{/youtube}

Current affairs, media and culture blog Newslaundry’s Madhu Trehan asks former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju, now the chairman of the Press Council of India (PCI), some tough questions about himself and freedom of speech (46 minute video interview). Is Katju’s bark not already bad enough, she asks, that you need more bite? As the interview proceeds, Katju’s fuse is lit several times, and barks and giggles ensue. Click through for a potted digest…

Law minister Salman Khursheed’s wife Louise Khursheed, represented by Abhimanyu Bhandari, co-founding partner of Axon Partners, and senior advocate Parag Tripathy, has filed a Rs 1 crore defamation claim in the Delhi high court against the India Today group and 13 other defendants including prominent TV anchors, who are represented by senior advocate CA Sundaram.

Editorial: Bangalore’s police, media and educators have shown themselves at their worst in the past days, appearing intent to keep slinging mud on a law school student who was allegedly the victim of a violent sex crime.

Publisher Lexis Nexis has obtained an injunction in the Lucknow District Court against Eastern Book Company (EBC) to prevent it from publicising that it was granted an interim injunction in the same court last month against Lexis Nexis for alleged plagiarism.

A lot of the recent frictions between the judiciary and the media are little more than misunderstandings, argues Kian Ganz.

In today’s edition of Mint: The good news for those who deal in news is that the Supreme Court decided against framing guidelines for covering so-called sub judice matters, or those before the courts.

The bad news is that by delivering what some analysts are calling an ambiguous judgement, the apex court may have well made it easier to muzzle the media and, far worse, institutionalized the process by which individuals and entities fighting cases can ensure that these aren’t covered till the order is passed.

The Supreme Court today laid down a new doctrine that, if requested, would allow courts to temporarily ban media from reporting a case if it would adversely affect the trial, but the special constitutional bench of five judges declined to create wider guidelines on how the media should report court cases.

Mint legal correspondent Nikhil Kanekal argues in today’s legal page in the paper that the hearing the Supreme Court is waging against the media, is fundamentally unfair and misunderstands the trade of journalism, as lawyers and judges are often wont to.