1 hr ago
Mute Button Row Raises Questions Over Noida DM Hearing
A court hearing about the Noida district magistrate had its sound and picture turned off.
This made people ask whether the hearing received special treatment.
The court had also turned off sound and picture during another case.
That case involved an investigation into alleged theft of donations for a Ram temple.
The Uttar Pradesh SIT gave the court an update in that case.
The court then issued a long order.
Journalists had to hurry into the courtroom to keep following what happened.
The information provided does not say why the court muted the hearings.
The mute-button dispute concerns audio and video being disabled during a Supreme Court hearing involving the Noida district magistrate.
The CJI’s court also muted audio and video during another hearing, suggesting the practice was not limited to the Noida DM case.
On Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant muted both during the Ram temple donation theft case.
The muting occurred while the Uttar Pradesh SIT submitted its status report and the court issued a lengthy order.
Journalists covering the proceedings had to enter the courtroom to follow both the Ram temple case and the Roopam hearing.
- Who
- A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, the Uttar Pradesh SIT, and journalists covering the hearings.
- What
- Audio and video were muted during the Noida DM-related hearing and during the Ram temple donation theft case.
- Where
- The CJI’s court and the courtroom where journalists followed the proceedings.
- When
- On Monday for the Ram temple donation theft case; the muting also occurred during the Roopam hearing.
- Why
- The stated reason for muting the audio and video is not provided.
Special Treatment Concern
Standard Practice Explanation
Use of muting
Special Treatment Concern
Muting the Noida DM hearing raises concerns that the proceeding may have been handled differently from ordinary hearings.
Standard Practice Explanation
The CJI’s court also muted audio and video in the Ram temple donation theft case, indicating that muting may be used in more than one hearing.
Access for journalists
Special Treatment Concern
When the broadcast was muted, journalists had to rush into the courtroom, potentially making coverage more difficult.
Standard Practice Explanation
Journalists were still able to cover the proceedings by entering the courtroom, as they did during the Roopam hearing.
Key facts
- Main issue
- Whether muting the Noida DM hearing amounted to special treatment or reflected standard court practice.
- Court
- The CJI’s court.
- Chief justice
- Surya Kant led the bench mentioned in the article.
- Other case
- Ram temple donation theft case.
- Investigating body
- The Uttar Pradesh SIT submitted a status report.
- Court action
- The court passed a long order after the status report was submitted.
- Effect on journalists
- Journalists had to enter the courtroom to follow the proceedings.
Sources
Related news
Questions Over Noida DM Case Listing Before Junior Bench
Supreme Court Told Ram Mandir Theft Cases Number 105
Lawyers Association Challenges Special Listing Of Noida DM Petition
Supreme Court Seeks SIT Chargesheet in Ram Temple Theft Case
Supreme Court Stays Compensation Order Against Noida District Magistrate
Court Extends Custody of Eight in Ayodhya Temple Donation Case
Political Jinxes Keep Leaders Away From Certain Places
Families Search for Loved Ones After Noida Bus Fire
Delhi Police Arrest Four in Axis Bank Impersonation Fraud