E-Paper
Criminal cases: SC directs states to frame media briefing policies
The Supreme Court mandates states to create media briefing policies for criminal cases within three months to prevent media trials and protect privacy.
The Supreme Court has directed states to frame and notify comprehensive media briefing policies for criminal cases within three months in a move aimed at preventing media trials, prejudicing investigations, and violating the privacy of both victims and accused.
The court expressed dissatisfaction over the lack of seriousness shown so far in regulating how police communicate with the media during investigations.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that states could draw from a detailed “Police Manual on Media Briefing” prepared by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was assisting the court as amicus curiae, while evolving their own tailored policies.
“We deem it appropriate to direct the states to evolve an appropriate policy for Media Briefing by taking into consideration the Police Manual for Media Briefing furnished by the learned Amicus Curiae. The needful will have to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the bench said in its January 15 order, which was released on Wednesday.
The court noted that despite earlier directions and deliberations, states had not shown “adequate interest” in putting in place safeguards to ensure that police briefings do not result in media trials, prejudice investigations, or violate the dignity and privacy of victims and accused.
The directions came in a public interest litigation filed by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in 1999, which flagged the absence of clear guidelines governing police encounters and media briefings by law enforcement agencies. Several connected appeals by individuals were also being heard with the case.
During a hearing in November last year, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Centre and states on the draft manual, calling the exercise “unprecedented” and granting eight weeks for governments to study and respond to the document. At the time, the court described the 61-page manual as an “exhaustive” effort and said states must carefully examine it before the court considered issuing binding directions.
Balancing right to information with fairness
The draft manual prepared by Sankaranarayanan seeks to strike a balance between the public’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the rights to dignity, privacy and fair trial under Article 21.
The manual lays down a rights-compatible and investigation-safe framework for police communication, stressing that media briefings must balance the public’s right to timely and accurate information with the dignity, privacy and fair-trial rights of victims, witnesses and suspects.
It mandates that all disclosures pass four tests , legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability, and be issued only through designated spokespersons and media briefing cells after due vetting. The manual bars police from commenting on the merits of cases, disclosing evidentiary theories, alleged confessions, witness accounts, investigative techniques or surveillance methods, while encouraging neutral, process-based updates such as registration of FIRs or arrests without implying guilt.
It places strong emphasis on victim-and survivor-centric communication, requiring strict identity protection, trauma-informed and non-judgmental language, and avoidance of stigmatising references to caste, religion or other personal attributes. Recognising the risks of social media virality, it calls for structured responses to rumours and misinformation, careful record-keeping of all briefings, and the use of plain, accessible language to build public trust without triggering media trials or compromising investigations.
(Trimmed for Print)
(For Web)
Recognising the heightened risks posed by 24/7 news cycles and social media virality, the manual stresses that police communication must be limited to “correct, verified, and necessary information” to prevent misinformation that could disrupt law and order or irreversibly damage lives.
Any disclosure, it says, must have a clear legal basis, serve a concrete public-interest objective, be narrowly tailored to minimise prejudice or privacy violations, and be issued only after vetting.
Another central feature of the manual is the emphasis on protecting the integrity of investigations and the fairness of trials. It strictly bars police from sharing details that could influence identification parades or testimony.
The document also warns against disclosing investigative techniques that could compromise law enforcement efforts or the chain of custody of evidence.
Focussing on survivor-and victim-centred communication, the manual mandates strict identity protection, including withholding names, faces, voices and re-identifying details of victims and witnesses, unless lawful, informed consent is obtained and disclosure is demonstrably in the survivor’s best interest. It calls for trauma-informed, non-judgmental language, avoidance of victim-blaming or moralising, and the use of generic visuals instead of images that reveal identity or depict suffering.
Acknowledging the speed at which misinformation spreads online, the manual proposes structured responses to rumours and disinformation, including the use of “Myth–Fact” cards to counter high-impact false narratives without amplifying them. It also calls for escalation to social media platforms in cases where content incites violence, violates court orders, or risks exposing victims and witnesses, mandates meticulous record-keeping of all media communications for accountability and audit.
Under the framework, only authorised spokespersons or officers approved by the head of the district, commissionerate or unit may brief the media. Dedicated media briefing cells are to maintain calendars of briefings, approval chains, and archives of all public communications. Every briefing must be recorded in a media briefing register capturing the time, subject, approving officer, final content and dissemination channels.
During earlier hearings, the court had referred to instances such as the Aarushi Talwar murder case, where contradictory and speculative police briefings led to sensational media coverage and caused lasting harm to the accused and witnesses.
While the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued guidelines on police media briefings as far back as April 2010, the Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged the lack of uniformity and effective implementation across states. The court has acknowledged that freedom of the press is constitutionally protected, but has underlined that it cannot come at the cost of fair investigation, fair trial and the dignity of those involved in criminal proceedings.
