SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 973

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1255, 1256, 1367 of 1999, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 47 of 2011, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 316 of 2008, T.C. (C) No. 27 of 2011
Decided On : 13-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Anshu Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Abhiti Vachher, P.N. Puri, Prashant Bhushan, Aditya Sharma, Apurba Pattanayak, Parekh, Sumita Hazarika, Ruchi Kohli.
For the Respondents: Shobha Gupta, Aditya Ranjan, Jessy Kurian, Tarjana Rai, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, T.A. Khan, Wasim Quadri, Ruchi Kohli, Chinmayee Chandra, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Diksha Rai, Ragani Pandey, Arunabh Choudhury, Pragya Baghel, Jayant Mohan, D.S. Mahra, Anil K. Chopra, Anil Shrivastav, P.V. Yogeswaran, Guntur Prabhakar, Monika Gusain, Suvarna Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Sumita Hazarika, Amit Anand Tiwari, Devyani Gupta, Tanvi Anand, Samir Ali Khan, D. Mahesh Babu, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra, T. Mahipal, Gopal Singh, M.R. Shamshad, Manish Kumar, Shaswati Parhi, Ravi Shanker Jha, Ranjan Mukherjee, Sharmila Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, G. Indira, Abhisth Kumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Hemantika Wahi, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Praveen Agrawal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, M. Shoeb Alam, Karanjawala, Tulika Mukherjee, Sudarshan Rajan, Sunny Choudhary, V.K. Verma, Rajat Srivastav, T.C. Kaushik, Tarun Verma, Rajat Arora, Shibashish Misra, Hrishikesh Baruah, Saumitra Srivastava, Radhika Gupta, Ruchira Goel, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Raj Kumar, Kapil Sahni, Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Vanshaja Shukla, Rachana Gandhi, Saurabh Trivedi, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Abbas, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Abhinav Mukerji, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Jainendra Ojha, Simanta Kumar, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Suraj Singh, Bhuwan Chandra, Ashok Panigrahi, Merusagar Samantaray, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Subhasish Mohanty, Jaspreet Gogia, K. Enatoli Sema, G. Prakash, M. Yogesh Kanna, Pragati Neekhra, Arvind H.S., Arputham Aruna V.K. Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, M.K. Maroria, Ruchi Kohli, Krishnanand Pandey, Aravindh S.

IMPORTANT POINT
Media briefings by Police – Age and gender of accused as well as of victims would have significant bearing on nature of disclosure to be made – Media trials are liable to result in a derailment of justice by impacting upon evidence which would be adduced and its assessment by adjudicating authorities.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) and 21 – Investigation into Police encounters – Media briefings by Police – There should be a Standard Operating Procedure – Disclosure of an official version of investigation would ensure against speculative crime reporting, which may be of a dis-service both to public interest involved and interest of the accused, prospective witnesses as well as victims and survivors of crime – Nature of disclosure cannot be uniform since it must depend upon nature of crime and profile of stake holders, including victims, witnesses and accused themselves – Age and gender of accused as well as of victims would have significant bearing on nature of disclosure to be made – It is equally important to emphasise that nature of disclosure which is made by police in course of media briefings should be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion pre-judging guilt of accused – Guidelines must duly factor in the need to ensure that disclosure does not result in a media trial so as to allow for pre-judging of guilt of accused – Media trials are liable to result in a derailment of justice by impacting upon evidence which would be adduced and its assessment by adjudicating authorities – All Directors General of Police shall, within a period of one month from date of this order, directed to communicate to Union Ministry of Home Affairs their suggestions for preparation of appropriate guidelines. (Paras 17 and 19)

Facts of the case:

This batch of cases raises two significant issues:

(i) The procedure to be followed by the police in investigating police encounters; and

(ii) The propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel.

Findings of Court:

National Human Rights Commission which has been represented by Ms Shobha Gupta, counsel, has also prepared its response to questionnaire which was circulated by Amicus Curiae. View point of National Human Rights Commission shall also be duly taken into consideration.

Result : Directions issued.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Media has a fundamental right to disseminate and receive fair and unbiased information related to criminal investigations, subject to competing considerations (!) (!) . - The accused is entitled to a fair and unbiased investigation and presumption of innocence; media reporting must not pre-judge guilt or impair the investigation (!) (!) . - Victims, especially minors and those in sensitive cases, have rights to privacy and dignity, which restrict media disclosure of identities and certain details (!) (!) (!) . - Police must ensure that media briefings are objective, avoid speculative reporting, and do not create media trials or jeopardize justice (!) (!) (!) . - Disclosure of investigation details must be necessary, proportionate, and governed by a standard operating procedure that balances public interest with individual rights (!) (!) (!) . - All police media interactions should be authorized, documented, and subject to disciplinary measures for non-compliance (!) (!) (!) . - The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to prepare comprehensive guidelines on police media briefings and consult stakeholders (!) (!) .

What are the rights of the media regarding access to information during police investigations?

What are the rights of the accused and victims concerning media reporting during investigations?

What guidelines should govern police media briefings during criminal investigations?


ORDER :

1. This batch of cases raises two significant issues:

(i) The procedure to be followed by the police in investigating police encounters.

(ii) The propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel.

2. The first issue, governing police encounters, has since been dealt with in the judgment of this Court dated 23 September 2014 in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635.

3. The second issue pertains to the modalities to be followed by the police in conducting media briefings where a criminal investigation for an alleged offence is in progress. The issue assumes significance, particularly, in the context of the manner in which media reportage takes place, particularly in crimes involving a degree of public interest.

4. Having regard to the ramifications of the issues involved, the Court appointed Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

5. A questionnaire was circulated by the Amicus Curiae in order to elicit information from the States and Union Territories. Several States, including the States of Bihar, Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand have responded, besides the Administrations of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh and Puducherry. Observations have been submitted by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, one of the appellants in the batch of cases. Other States, including the States of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have served copies of the replies filed by them in a connected petition [Surat Singh vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 316 of 2008].

6. Media reporting on matters involving the commission of crimes involves several aspects bearing on public interest. At a basic level, the fundamental right to free speech and expression is directly implicated. This engages the right of the media to disseminate news, views and information and the right of the viewing public or readers of printed news. There can be no gainsaying the fact that both the media in pursuance of its fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression as well as the consumers of news, information and ideas have a right to disseminate and to receive fair and unbiased information. Criminal offences and investigation into them by the law enforcement machinery involves significant elements of public interest bearing upon the right to be informed and the right to know.

7. At the same time, there are competing considerations which are also of immense significance. At one level, the accused whose conduct is under investigation is entitled to a fair and unbiased investigation by the police. Unfair reporting by the media has the potential to affect public opinion and impinge upon the presumption of innocence which is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. At the stage of the investigation and even trial, every accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Media reportage in a manner which implicates the culpability of the person who is under investigation is liable to seriously impinge upon the reputation and personal dignity of the individual under investigation. Biased reporting also gives rise to public suspicion that the person under investigation has committed the offence though the complicity of the accused is yet to be investigated and, if a charge-sheet is submitted to be subjected to the administration of criminal justice in accordance with law.

8. At another level, media reportage also impinges upon the right of victims or, as the case may be, survivors of crimes. In a given case, the victim may be a minor. In some cases, the nature of the crime may involve the privacy of the victim, in cases such as those involving gender violence. The publication of photographs and visuals of the bodies of deceased victims of crime affects the very notion of preserving the dignity in death.

9. While a disclosure by the media of relevant details involves public interest associated with the fundamental ri


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top