Why should we not frame guidelines on media coverage, Bombay HC asks Centre

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday questioned the Central government as to why it should not frame guidelines on media coverage of sensitive issues and ongoing

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday questioned the Central government as to why it should not frame guidelines on media coverage of sensitive issues and ongoing investigations after the counsel for former police officers drew the attention of the court to the fact that the Central government had not taken suo motu action under the Cable TV Regulation Act against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case which was going on for over two months. The court has asked the Central government several questions and asked it to respond within a week.

HT Image

The division bench of chief justice (CJ) Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing several public interest litigations (PILs) against the media trial being carried out by various media channels in the SSR death case, was informed by senior counsel Aspi Chinoy who appeared for eight former senior police officers that there had been a blatant violation of rights of various persons by the media while reporting on the case.

Chinoy said the channels, while reporting on the case, had resorted to pre-judging, as a result of which it was affecting the administration of justice, which in turn violates the right to fair trial and presumption of innocence guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution.

He submitted that it was apparent that the media had over-stepped the statutory framework of the act by transmitting material which amounted to contempt of court, and further added that though there was an obligation on the state to stop such transmissions, it had failed to take action. He added that even the Centre and self-regulating authorities such as the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) had failed to take suo motu action against the media trial. He added that the electronic media monitoring committee had also failed in this regard.

In light of this, Chinoy said the robust system, as claimed by the said authorities, was of no use and hence the court should frame guidelines and submitted judgements of the Supreme Court which showed that when there is an absence of proper laws on a particular subject, the court can issue guidelines.

After hearing the submissions, the CJ sought clarifications from the Centre and posed some questions. The court held that while collection of evidence by the investigation agency was aimed at opining whether an accused needs to be arrested, excessive reporting can put the accused on guard. The accused may also resort to destruction of evidence or fleeing. CJ Datta then said that excessive media reporting could also tarnish the image of a person who is actually innocent, and if the witnesses are exposed by the media, he could be threatened or bought over.

The CJ then sought to know that if judges should not be influenced by what media says what about the police officers? Would he not be influenced or lose track (of investigation) altogether. The bench further sought to know whether the media maligning police officers, who did not investigate the way suggested by the media, was right and whether this was welcome in a society governed by law?

The court also sought to know what was meant by investigative journalism and which law said that whatever evidence was collected by investigation agencies should be kept before the public. It also sought to know is there was any obligation on part of the investigating officer to disclose evidence.

“Media says it is aiding the investigation. Most welcome. But go to the police under sections 37/38 of the Criminal Procedure Code and give information to them,” the court said. The CJ further added, “While we would like the media to not cross boundaries, even we should stick within boundaries as the real issue is when a police report is yet to be filed whether media coverage would tend to interfere with the administration of justice.”

The court has directed additional solicitor general Anil Singh to respond to the queries within a week and posted further hearing for Friday, November 5.