E-Paper
High court restrains cops from circulating info on Pinjra Tod member till trial begins
New Delhi:
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Monday restrained police from circulating information on allegations against Devangana Kalita, a member of Pinjra Tod and an accused in the north-east Delhi riots, till trial begins, while stating “human dignity is a constitutional value and any action that unnecessarily denudes a person of his dignity would have a debilitating effect on the rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution”.
Kalita, a PhD student from JNU, through her counsel Adit S Pujari, sought directions to stop police from making selective media leaks while contending it would prejudice to the rights of a free and fair trial due to such acts.
She has been arrested in four cases related to the communal riots in north-east Delhi in February this year and has been charged with the stringent UAPA for her alleged role in hatching a conspiracy, along with other accused. The violence claimed 53 lives and left several others injured.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru on Monday said the police authorities “are not the adjudicators of guilt or innocence of any person” and it cannot pronounce on the guilt or innocence of any person. It refused to accept the contention of police that the media note was issued in view of the campaign being run on social media and said the reason is “not persuasive”.
Deciding the matter, the court said “it is not necessary to name accused in media reports”. Citing the rules laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the court restrained the police to publish anything with respect to Kalita.
“The cases concerning communal riots are undoubtedly sensitive cases. This court is informed that FIRs filed in such cases are not being publicly disclosed. In the circumstances, this court considers it apposite to direct the respondent (city police) not to issue any further communication naming any accused or any witness till the charges, if any, are framed and the trial is commenced,” the judge said in a 33-page judgment.
The court, however, refused to set aside the media note in question and said there was nothing incriminating in it.
“The question whether media reporting or disclosing of information by the investigation agency has the propensity to prejudicially affect fair trial would depend on the facts of each case...Concededly, there cannot be any blanket order proscribing city police Delhi Police from disclosing any information regarding pending cases,” the court said.
The single-judge bench said selective disclosure of information calculated to sway the public opinion to believe that an accused is guilty of the alleged offence; to use electronic or other media to run a campaign to besmirch the reputation or credibility of the person concerned; and to make questionable claims of solving cases and apprehending the guilty while the investigations are at a nascent stage, would clearly be impermissible.
“This is not only because such actions may prejudicially affect a fair trial but also because it may, in some cases, have the effect of stripping the person involved of his/her dignity or subjecting him/or her to avoidable ignominy. It is trite that “the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity”.
The Delhi Police refused to comment on the developments, citing the Delhi High Court’s order in the matter.
