L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these three writ petitions are accredited journalists. Each one of them is associated with a News Agency as well as a T. V. Channel. All of them have approached the Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapalli, Hyderabad, and Deputy general and Inspector General of Prisoners and Correctional Services, Chanchalguda, hyderabad, seeking permission to interview and elicit information from one sri Maddelacheruvu Suryanarayana reddy, alias Suri, who is serving life sentence in the Central Prison, Cherlapalli, hyderabad. The occasion for them to interview, or to elicit information from the said person arose, on account of the fact that he was arrayed as one of the accused in the murder of an M. L. A. , of the Andhra pradesh State Legislature, by name Sri paritala Ravindra, who was murdered at anantapur, on 24-1-2005.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS contend that, in view of various dimensions that the case of murder of Sri Paritala Ravindra, had assumed, it has become necessary for them to keep the public, at large, informed of the various possible angles of the matter. Extensive reference is made in the respective affidavits, to the developments, that have taken place ever since 24-1-2005. They ultimately contend that every citizen, and thereby the press, or the electronic media, has a right to propagate the ideas, or to project the views that are possible, in relation to an incident of public importance. They contend that the inaction on the part of the respondents in according permission is violative of their fundamental rights, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India.

( 3 ) SUBMISSIONS on behalf of the petitioners are made by learned Counsel Sri k. Sarvabhouma Rao, P. Vishnu Vardhan reddy and Sri A. Chandrasekhar. All of them contend that, though, basically it is the function of the Investigating Agency, to identify the actual culprits and bring them to the book, the society, at large, is entitled to know the reaction of an accused, in relation to such incident. They plead that the necessity for the press to interview one of the principal accused in the case has arisen, on account of the fact that he is already serving a sentence, and there is no facility for him to react to the accusation made against him. Learned Counsel point out that, in a way, the petitioners are attempting to supplement the personal right of an accused, and in that view of the matter, the refusal on the part of the respondents to accord permission cannot be countenanced. Learned Counsel rely upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, in support of their contention.

( 4 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for home obtained detailed instructions from the respondents. He submits that the case is still at the primary stage of investigation, and having regard to the importance and dimensions involved in it, the investigation was entrusted to the C. B. I. He submits that any interference by the media or journalists, at this stage, is likely to have its negative effect upon the course of investigation. He submits that when it is impermissible for a convicted prisoner, to enjoy unbridled rights of speech and expression, the press cannot expand the same. On the basis of the various observations made by the hon ble Supreme Court, in several judgments, he urges that the freedom of press is not absolute or uncontrolled, and that it has to be exercised in such a way, as not to meddle with the course of investigation of prosecution of cases. He also contends that the permission accorded by the Supreme court in several cases was for the purpose of advancing the cause of those who are serving the sentences, and not in relation to the crimes, alleged to have been committed, thereafter.

( 5 ) THE petitioners sought the respondents (prison authorities), to interview one of the life convicts, serving sentence in that prison. Apart from asserting their right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution, the petitioners also urg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document