No curbs, but must exercise caution: HC to TV channels

While protecting journalists and news organisations from revealing their sources, the bench asked them to check the authenticity of the information and not to sensationalise the issue.

Leaked information that can influence the investigation cannot be disseminated, the Delhi high court said on Friday, while also refusing to restrain TV channels from reporting on the case related to the purported protests “toolkit” for which Bengaluru-based environmental activist Disha Ravi has been arrested.

A file photo of Delhi high court in New Delhi.

While protecting journalists and news organisations from revealing their sources, the bench asked them to check the authenticity of the information and not to sensationalise the issue.

The order said that “leaked investigation material” should not be circulated to prejudice the probe.

Justice Prathiba M Singh also said that the Delhi police can hold press briefings on its investigation in accordance to the guidelines laid in an Office Memorandum of April 1, 2010 as long as the rights of 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi are not violated.

Ravi, through her counsel Abhinav Sekhri, moved the Delhi high court on Thursday seeking to restrain the city police from leaking any information related to investigation in the toolkit matter.

In her petition, Ravi said that police took away her mobile phone on February 13 and forced her to provide them with credentials of her private accounts. The police denied the charges on Thursday and also filed an affidavit in this regard.

The court admitted that “recent coverage by the media definitely shows that there is sensationalism”. It said “while police briefings and the happenings in court proceedings etc. can also be broadcast and disseminated, leaked investigation material ought not to be disseminated so as to prejudice the investigation.”

However, it declined to entertain Ravi’s request that the content be taken down saying the removal of articles would be considered at a later stage.

The court asked editors of the channels to exercise proper editorial control so that the investigation is not hampered in any manner.

“If the charge-sheet is filed in the meantime and the same is made public, once the investigation reaches some conclusion, dissemination of the contents of the charge-sheet would not be interdicted in any manner,” the judge clarified.

The court also asked Ravi to ensure that people related to her do not share information after the police.

The Bengaluru-based climate activist, through her counsel, senior advocate Akhil Sibal, assured the court that neither Ravi or any other person directly associated with her intend to indulge in any kind of maligning of the police or the investigating authorities.

Appearing for Network 18, counsel Mrinal Bharti sought time from the court to verify the broadcasts and go through the petition filed by Ravi.

On behalf of India Today, advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, told the court that the only publication referred to in the petition is an online article that does not relate to India Today TV channels. He said that in any event, Ravi does not seem to be claiming that the WhatsApp messages are false or incorrect and cannot be attributed to her.

Advocate Kunal Tandon, appearing for Times Now, told the court that the Right to Privacy would be restricted only by public interest which has to be “overwhelming”, according to Supreme Court’s judgment on privacy.

Following submissions, the court posted the matter for further hearing on March 17.