Editorial policies for legal journalism may require some internal and public conversations (for eg. contempt proceedings). Reporting at the stage of letters/complaints to the Attorney General feeds a media cycle that gains tremendous speed and breadth. 1/n

Here perverse incentives (de hors in principle objections to the law of contempt) may develop for complainants. Some of these exist for PILs for which I have recommended depersonalising the docket name from the name of the petitioner to the cause as per the grounds of law. 2/n

Such incentives will lead to greater number of complaints and spur constant media cycles that drive online polarity around the politics of the office of the AG & the Supreme Court. There are benefits to disclosure even at this stage however depth must replace speed. 3/n

Recommend till contempt law is substantially recast in India, the AGs office (as a public authority) should issue guidelines on monthly disclosures on complaints and replies on consent. Must be consolidated and published to assist study, consistency and even larger reforms. 4/n

On the part of legal portals till reforms in contempt laws and processes by the AGs office are devised on their part they may consider editorial codes of practice that are published online. It will help provide guidance & consistency in publication decisions. 5/n

There are risks to all approaches and I may not have foreseen some here. Please excuse them if they do arise and contribute any thoughts. Complaints for contempt even when subsequent consent is refused can lead to individual distress & cause tremendous chilling of speech. 6/6