Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUSHIL SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 05/01/1996
CONTEMPT OF COURT - FAIR TRIAL - MEDIA REPORTING - GUIDELINES: 1. Expeditious investigation and filing of challan does not amount to denial of fair trial. 2. Adverse publicity and public opinion against the accused does not necessarily lead to denial of fair trial. 3. Statements by senior police officials to the press and news items pertaining to a pending case may amount to contempt of court if they interfere with the administration of justice or lower the dignity of the court. 4. The court has the power to hold proceedings in camera to avoid excessive publicity and protect the interests of the accused. 5. Guidelines for judicial reporting should be followed to ensure fair trial and prevent prejudice to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sushil Sharma, was facing a murder trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. He felt aggrieved because of news items appearing in the press and electronic media that had reported the case in a manner that he felt had prejudiced public opinion and aroused public passions against him. He alleged that the senior police officials, by their utterances published in the press, had prejudged his case and held him guilty. He sought to have the trial postponed or to be discharged, and for contempt proceedings to be initiated against those responsible for lowering the dignity of the court by interfering in the administration of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's apprehension of not getting a fair trial due to the media reports was unfounded. The court observed that the news items did not touch the merits of the case and that the trial court had rightly observed that the filing of the chargesheet and the subsequent media coverage did not amount to interference in the administration of justice. The court also held that the petitioner had not been able to point out any instance where the court had been carried away by the news items or media publicity. The court further held that the statements by the senior police officials and the news items did not amount to contempt of court as they did not interfere with the administration of justice or lower the dignity of the court.
Issues: 1. Whether expeditious investigation and filing of challan amounts to denial of fair trial? 2. Whether adverse publicity and public opinion against the accused lead to denial of fair trial? 3. Whether statements by senior police officials to the press and news items pertaining to a pending case amount to contempt of court? 4. Whether the court has the power to hold proceedings in camera to avoid excessive publicity and protect the interests of the accused? 5. What guidelines should be followed for judicial reporting to ensure fair trial and prevent prejudice to the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that expeditious investigation and filing of challan does not amount to denial of fair trial as it is the mandate of the legislature to expedite criminal trials and ensure that the accused does not face prolonged agony of trial and jail. 2. The court held that adverse publicity and public opinion against the accused does not necessarily lead to denial of fair trial as the trial court has the power to hold proceedings in camera to avoid excessive publicity and protect the interests of the accused. 3. The court held that statements by senior police officials to the press and news items pertaining to a pending case may amount to contempt of court if they interfere with the administration of justice or lower the dignity of the court. 4. The court held that the court has the power to hold proceedings in camera to avoid excessive publicity and protect the interests of the accused. 5. The court held that guidelines for judicial reporting should be followed to ensure fair trial and prevent prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner's apprehension of not getting a fair trial was unfounded. The court also held that the statements by the senior police officials and the news items did not amount to contempt of court.
( 1 ) THE awareness of what is happening around in the society to a great extent is the work-force of journalists. Mature investgative journalism helps in unearthing many skeletons Democratic institutions are surviving, thanks to the eternal vigilance of the journalists. But for journalists also there is code of conduct and ethical norms. The task to keep restraint in pending matters is expected more from the investigating and prosecuting agencies. Similarly the Judge dealing with sensitive and important matters have to exercise due restriant in their utterances. It is rightly said that the Judge speak through their judgments only keeping this dictum in mind, we have to see as to what is the grievance of this petitioner.
( 2 ) SUSHIL Sharma is facing murder trial before the Additional Sessions Judge. He has felt aggrieved because according to him the news items appearing in the Press and the electronic media having reported the Naina Sahni murder case in such a fashion that it has not only coloured the public opinion but also arouse public passions against him. So much so the senior police officials by their utterances published in the Press have prejudged his case thereby holding him guilty. In fact by doing so, a parallel public trial has been held against him thereby declaring him guilty of the charge of murder of Naina Sahni. The Additional Commissioner of Police Maxwell Pereira has gone on record to say that he was possessed of sufficient material to hang the petitioner. Because of these statements by the officials of the Investigating Agency and senior police officials made in the Press/electroinic media, the petitioner can not expect fair trial. In view of surcharged atmosphere prevailing against him, he wants either the trial he postponed or he be discharged. In any case contempt proceedings be initiated against all those who are responsible for lowering the dignity of the Court by interfering in the Administration of Justice by publishing these news items.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the petitioner we may have quick glance to the relevant facts of this case. As per prosecution story on 2nd July, 1995 gruesome murdel. of Naina Sahni took place in her Gole Market. flat. She was shot at and thereafter the culprits with the intention to destroy the evidence tried to burn her body in the Tandoor of Bagiya Restaurant at Ashok Yatri Niwas. But unfortunately for them, the flames coming from the Tandoor were seen by Smt. Anguri Devi. She raised he and cry. The Beat Constable got alerted and he retrieved the charred body of Naina Sahni from the Tandoor. After investigation, the prosecution registered the case against the petitioner and others. Petitioner is booked on the charged of murder of Naina Sahni and others have been charged for destruction of evidence and harbouring a criminal. In the report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. filed by the prosecution, the petitioner has been named as killer . Further details have been furnished regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner at the time of incident and thereafter and also where he went after fleeing from Delhi. . At this moment, we are not concerned with these details nor with the allegations or involvement of each of the accused persons. Suffice it to say, that after collecting the evidence including that of the experts, the prosecution presented the. challan in Court on 28th July 1995. The Metropolitan Magistrate after completing the proceedings committed the case to the Court of Session on 31st August, 1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took up the case for hearing the arguments on charge. It is at this staga that the petitioner presented two applications thereby seeking the relief of postponement or dropping of the proceedings against him on the ground that in the prevalent atmosphere with emotions having been aroused by the media he could not expect fair trial. According to him, the Investigating Agency was hell bent upon fixi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
