ORDER

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J

The petitioner is connected with mainstream electronic media news channel, namely, TV5 Telugu news. This writ petition (public interest litigation) has been preferred seeking direction to the respondents not to foist cases on media personnel or social media users in a cavalier manner or sans concrete evidence corroborating the prima facie involvement of the alleged perpetrators in the crime; to direct the respondents to forthwith upload a copy of the First Information Report within 24 hours from the lodging of a report and further to direct them to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, in all cases registered by them henceforth without fail.

2. It is highlighted that Freedom of Press is an Implied Right inherent in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakal Papers v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1962 SC 305 and the Press seeks to advance public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. It is, thus, agitated that Freedom of Press is for the benefit of the general community; therefore, foisting of false cases or harassing the media personnel is opposed to the Constitutional Doctrine of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Referring to two cases registered against the petitioner’s T.V. channel involving offences attracting imprisonment of less than seven years, it is stated in the writ petition that arrest in such cases is not permissible in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

3. The petitioner is not praying for quashing of the criminal cases registered against the T.V. channel. The prayer is only for a direction to the respondents not to foist cases in a cavalier manner without concrete evidence and to direct the Police to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

4. There can be no general direction to the respondents not to foist false cases, because ordinarily investigating agency is presumed to perform its duties in accordance with law and each case is to be considered on the basis of its own facts. However, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to see that citizens are not harassed by arresting them in petty offences carrying punishment less than 7 years. In Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 5 and 6, held as follows:

“5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. Lawmakers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that the police has not learnt its lesson: the lesson implicit and embodied in CrPC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of Independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasised time and again by the courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.

6. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasised the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable a