Media trial in Sushant Singh Rajput death case: Bombay HC concludes hearing, reserves judgment

The Bombay high court (HC) on Friday concluded hearing arguments in the public interest litigations (PIL) filed by eight former police officers from Maharashtra,

The Bombay high court (HC) on Friday concluded hearing arguments in the public interest litigations (PIL) filed by eight former police officers from Maharashtra, as well as others, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case. In its concluding arguments the Union of India, while replying to the query by the court on whether reporting on the ongoing investigation in sensitive criminal matters amounted to contempt, said that it did not. The Centre, however, added that the high court was empowered to pass restraining orders on media reporting as and when required.

The Centre through additional solicitor-general Anil Singh further reiterated the stand of the government and the self-regulating authorities that the existing mechanism was sufficient to keep a check on the functioning of news channels, hence there was no need for additional legislation, regulations or guidelines.

After hearing all parties including self-regulatory authorities such as News Broadcasters Association (NBA) and News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), directing all of them to file their written submissions on the petitions, the court said that the arguments were concluded and reserved its judgment, which would be passed in due course.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice GS Kulkarni, while hearing the rejoinder by the Centre to the submissions made by the news channels and self-regulating authorities, clarified that it would address the specific query of the court as to when contempt was applicable in sensitive criminal investigations.

Singh submitted that while the counsel for the police officers Aspi Chinoy had submitted that the media trial, even during the stage of police investigation would amount to interference in justice, and provisions of contempt were attracted, it was not the case.

Singh justified the Centre’s stand by referring to Supreme Court judgments which stated that though criminal proceedings become imminent after the arrest takes place, the provision of contempt would be applicable only after that. He, however, added that contempt would be applicable even if a charge sheet is not filed after the arrest.

While countering the allegations made by the petitioners, senior counsel Arvind Datar for NBA and NBSA submitted that disciplinary action was taken against errant channels regularly, hence the demand of the petitioners and NGO’s to have additional guidelines was not necessary.

He said that though the authorities were independent bodies they adjudicated complaints based on the programme code stipulated in the Cable TV Regulation Act and was answerable to the ministry of information and broadcasting. Datar added that NBSA would be issuing an advisory to all member channels to strictly adhere to the programme code after FIR’s were registered in sensitive criminal matters.

After hearing all sides, the bench held that arguments were concluded and directed the parties to file their written submissions and reserved its judgement, which will be passed in a few days.