Prepare guidelines to check media trial in 3 months: Supreme Court to Centre
The Court was dealing with appeals highlighting the need for guidelines to regulate the procedure for investigation of police encounters and media briefings.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government to come out, within three months, with guidelines on how the police should brief media about ongoing investigations so as to prevent biased reporting, speculation, and media trials, while still ensuring transparency.
Noting the surge in reporting of criminal cases in social media, and also in print and electronic media, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said, “There is no denying the fact that disclosure of official version of investigation will ensure against speculative crime reporting which may be a disservice to public interest and interest of accused, witnesses, prospective witnesses and victims.”
The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals, the earliest dating back to a 1999 one by NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), highlighting the need for guidelines to regulate the procedure for investigation of police encounters and media briefings by police personnel. While the first issue was settled by the top court in a judgment issued in 2014, the second issue was pending with the Court seeking responses from states and the Union government based on a questionnaire prepared by the Court-appointed amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
Although the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued guidelines for media briefing by police way back in April 2010, Sankaranarayanan referred to the Arushi Talwar murder case where multiple statements given by the police led to speculative stories .
The bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said, “The guidelines of MHA were proposed over a decade ago....There is need to have a uniform policy to be adopted for notifying nodal officers available to share the stage of investigation consistent with the principle that any disclosure won’t derail the course of investigation.”
The Court added that there can be no uniform measure for disclosures, adding that the age, gender of accused and victims will have significant impact on disclosure, along with nature of crime and participating stakeholders – the accused, victim and witnesses.
Giving time to the Union government to consult states and the national human rights commission (NHRC), the Court directed the director generals of police (DGPs) of all states to furnish their suggestions to MHA within one month before posting the matter for further consideration in January.
The Court flagged certain concerns to ensure they find expression in the guidelines. It said: “Guidelines must duly factor any disclosure resulting in media trial that pre-judges the accused as media trial will deflect the course of justice and assessment of evidence by the adjudicating authority (trial court).”
But the bench also recognized that the media has a freedom of press protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (right to freedom of speech and expression), which equally guarantees the right of citizens, who are consumers of news, to know news, views and ideas. At the same time, the Court held that during investigation, every accused is entitled to a “fair and unbiased” investigation.
Weighing both together, the bench said, “While disclosure of relevant details by the media involves public interest under Article 19(1)(a), equally it will have a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of accused and victim, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Read here: Firecrackers available in Delhi despite ban: SC
Upholding the principle of criminal law that till held guilty, every accused person is entitled to presumption of innocence, the Court said in its order, “Biased reporting gives rise to a suspicion that the person has committed the offence under investigation...Such media reportage is liable to impinge on reputation and personal liberty of the individual.”
Similarly, with regard to victims, the bench highlighted the concern is that in some cases, investigation may involve a minor victim .
The amicus curiae took the Court through international practice in this regard by sharing handbooks on media relations prepared by New York police department, Los Angeles police, Metropolitan Police (London) among other global police bodies.
Based on the above, a note prepared by Sankarnarayanan suggested that each district or town should have a police media briefing cell with press handouts being given at every stage after the first information report (FIR) is registered, or an arrest is made or a raid conducted. He proposed special care be taken while disclosing information about sexual offences, juvenile offenders, minor victims and ongoing investigation. Disciplinary action was also suggested for officers violating the rules, he added.
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the note by the amicus curiae said that contempt is attracted only when a publication reports a criminal proceeding after charge sheet is filed. The said note further added that this was an “error” which the Law Commission of India sought to remedy in its 200th report by saying that arrest is the starting point for taking cognizance of criminal contempt.
Read here: Child born before divorce: Put biological father’s name in birth certificate, HC tells NMMC
In 2012, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v SEBI, examined threadbare the delicate balance of right of accused and media’s right to report and held that before disclosing any information, police must strike a balance that aids administration of justice and a fair trial.
Recommended Topics