Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 976
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, J.
Saint Shri Asharam Bapu
Versus
U.O.I & Others
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 900 of 2013
Decided On : 21-10-2013
For the Petitioner:Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Anjani K. Singh, Chandra Prakash, Advocates.
The court declined to restrain media publications regarding a pending trial, relying on existing judicial guidelines to ensure a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, while granting liberty to approach the court if such guidelines are violated.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Writ of mandamus - Media trial - Right to fair trial and presumption of innocence - Request to restrain media from publishing prejudicial reports - Court observes that guidelines already exist in previous judicial precedents regarding media coverage - Expresses trust that print and electronic media will adhere to said guidelines - No immediate necessity to entertain the petition.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents and the media from publishing news reports or articles that could adversely prejudice the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty before a competent court of law, or alternatively, for the postponement of such publications until the conclusion of the trial.
Findings of Court:
For the present, there is no need to entertain the writ petition. The court trusts that the print and electronic media will follow the guidelines laid down in previous decisions of the court regarding reporting on judicial proceedings.
Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to restrain media reporting to protect the petitioner's right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: Since judicial guidelines already exist in previous precedents to prevent media prejudice and ensure fair trials, the court is not required to intervene at this stage, although the petitioner retains the liberty to approach the court if existing guidelines are not adhered to by reporting agencies.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to fair trial
- presumption of innocence
-
fundamental rights
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
-
media and reporting
- guidelines for media
-
writ jurisdiction
Judgment :
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order, direction, restraining the respondents as well as media in general from publishing any news report/article in any manner whatsoever, adversely prejudicing the petitioner's right to fair trial and presumption of being innocent until proved guilty before the competent Court of law or in alternative the petitioner has prayed issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ(s), direction(s) directing postponement of publication of any news report/article in any manner whatsoever, adversely prejudicing the petitioner's right to fair trial and presumption of being innocent until proved guilty before the competent Court of law at least till conclusion of the trial.
We have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. After taking us through the publication made in certain dailies as well as coverage of electronic media, Mr. Vikas Singh has also relied on various earlier decisions of this Court viz. 1997 (8) SCC 386 para 37 State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi ; 2005 (2) SCC 686 para 10 - M.P. Lohia Vs. State of W.B. and Another ; 2010 (6) SCC 1 para 297, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303 - Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and 2012 (10) SCC 603 para 12, 47, 50 - Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Another .
After hearing the argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the publication and news coverage which are enclosed with the present writ petition as well as the ratio laid down in various decisions, we are of the view that for the present there is no need to entertain the writ petition. In view of various directions in the above referred cases, we hope and trust that the media both print and electronic would follow those guidelines.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Petitioner is free to approach this Court if the ratio laid down by this Court is not adhered to by the reporting agencies.
