Important Points
1. The Court before whom trial of untertail prisoner is pending has authority to grant permission to the press to interview the prisioner inside the Jail.
2. The press does not have unfettered right to interview an under-trial prisoner; interview which the press would take will be regulated by the provisions contained in the Jail Manual and the Jail authorities can modulate the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Manual.
3. The Court before disposing of an application seeking permission to interview an under-trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interview and the Court cannot pass a blanket order granting permission without applying mind to relevant factors.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 19(1)(a) and 21 - Freedom of speach and expression-Right of press to interview on undertrial prisoner in jail-Court before whom trial of under-trial accused in pending has authority to issue permission to press to interview-Court must notice jail authorities and find out any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews - Permission should be subject to relevant Rules and Regulations contained in Jail Manual-Court cannot pass blanket order granting permission without applying mind to relevant factors as press does not have unfettered right to interview an under trial prisoner in jail-Interview which Press would take will be regulated by provisions contained in Jail Manuals - Jail Authorities can modulate the same in accordance with provisions contained in Jail Manual.
       Held : At the outset we take up the issue regarding the authority of the learned Sessions Judge in granting permission. As it appears, the accused is an under-trial prisoner and the case is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had granted the order of permission. The trial of the accused being pending before the Additional Sessions Judge it cannot be said that he had no authority to issue permission to the Press to interview the under trial inside the jail. (Para 2)
       There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the order granting permission to the Press to interview an under-trial cannot be passed mechanically without application of mind. In as much as the Court granting permission will have to weigh the competing interest between the right of a Press and the right of the Authorities prohibiting such interview in the interest of administration of justice. The Court, therefore, before disposing of an application seeking permission to interview an under-trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews. The Court also should try to find out whether any restrictions or prohibitions are contained in the Jail Manual. The so called permission granted by the Court would be subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations contained in the Jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities of the under-trial prisoners. (Para 3)
       In the instant case if we examine the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it can be said without hesitation that the said learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the application seeking permission to interview by passing a blanket order without applying his mind and without even knowing the mind of the authorities and without bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions. No Court would pass such a blanket order mechanically without applying its mind to the relevant factors, as the Press does not have an unfettered right to interview an under trial prisoner in jail. when we examine the impugned order of the High Court we find that the High Court did bear in mind the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and, therefore, while granting permission to interview the under-trial prisoners it modified the blanket order passed by the learned Sessions Judge putting such restrictions and conditions as contained in the impugned order. No grievance, therefore, can be made to the impugned order of the High Court. But after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we may add a further condition that the interview which the Press would take will be regulated by the provisions contained in Jail Manuals and, therefore, the Jail Authorities can modulate the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Manual. (Para 5)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J. - Competing rights, namely, right of press to interview a prisoner in jail and right of jail authorities prohibiting such interview arise for consideration in the present appeal. One Babloo Srivastava, who is in judicial custody and is being tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B had been lodged in Tihar Jail. The news magazine ‘India Today’ moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi seeking permission to interview the under-trial prisoner in jail. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 6.11.95 granted the permission sought for. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the prosecuting agency moved the High Court in Revision. By the impugned order dated 1st May, 1996, the High Court did not interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting permission but modified the same by issuing the following directions :-

“However, it is made clear that the interview and/or photographs of Babloo Srivastava would be taken only if he expressed his willingness and not otherwise. If given, the respondent newsmagazine is expected to publish the interview with a sense of propriety and balance and without offending the law of contempt of Courts or impairing the administration of justice.”

The aforesaid order is being challenged in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the permission in question and the order itself indicates that the learned Sessions Judge had passed the order mechanically without application of mind. He had also contended that though the High Court had modified the said order yet the right of the Jail Authorities to deny interview for good reasons has been conceded by this Court in Smt. Prabha Dutt v. Union of India & Ors.1, and therefore, the High Court was not justified in issuing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that there is no provisions in the Jail Manual prohibiting interviews of the undertrial prisoners. In the absence of such prohibition the Right of Press, as engrafted in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be cutrailed though the learned counsel urged that while granting permission the Court may put such conditions as it thinks fit in the interest of administration of justice. The learned counsel also urged that the High Court has considered all the germane factors and has modified the order of the learned Sessions Judge, and therefore, there is no infirmity with the order of the High Court so as to be interfered with.

2. At the outset we take up the issue regarding the authority of the learned Sessions Judge in granting permission. As it appears, the accused is an under-trial prisoner and the case is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had granted the order of permission. The trial of the accused being pending before the Additional Sessions Judge it cannot be said that he had no authority to issue permission to the Press to interview the under trial inside the jail. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant appearingin this Court.

3. Coming to the second limb of the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the order granting permission to the Press to interview an under-trial cannot be passed mechanically without application of mind. In as much as the Court granting permission will have to weigh the competing interest between the right of a Press and the right of the Authorities prohibiting such interview in the interest of administration of justice. The Court, therefore, before disposing of an application seeking permission to interview an under-trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews. The Court also should try to f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 486

Cases Referred (2)