Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Devangana Kalita - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 898 of 2020; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7426 of 2020, 8961 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2020
Media Trial - Right to Fair Trial - Rajinderan Chingaravelu v. Mr R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of I T & Ors, (2010) 1 SCC 457 ; Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603 ; State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi:, (1997) 8 SCC 386 ; and Manu Sharma v. State, (2010) 6 SCC 1 - The court examined the impugned note issued by the Delhi Police and its impact on the petitioner's right to a fair trial. It considered various legal principles and judgments related to media trials, selective leaks, and the impact of media reporting on the administration of justice. The court concluded that the impugned note did not violate the petitioner's right to a fair trial and declined to set it aside. However, it directed the respondent not to issue any further communication naming any accused or witness until the charges are framed and the trial commences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an M. Phil-Ph.D student, was involved in peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA). She was arrested in connection with the Jafrabad Riot Case and alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy. The petitioner filed a petition alleging selective leaks by the Delhi Police to prejudice public opinion and violate her right to a fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned note did not violate the petitioner's right to a fair trial and declined to set it aside. However, it directed the respondent not to issue any further communication naming any accused or witness until the charges are framed and the trial commences.
Issues: The issues involved the impact of the impugned note on the petitioner's right to a fair trial, selective leaks by the Delhi Police, and the influence of media reporting on public opinion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered legal principles related to media trials, selective leaks, and the impact of media reporting on the administration of justice. It emphasized the need to balance the right to freedom of speech and expression with the right to a fair trial.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the impugned note did not violate the petitioner's right to a fair trial and declined to set it aside. However, it directed the respondent not to issue any further communication naming any accused or witness until the charges are framed and the trial commences.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Delhi Police to not leak any allegations pertaining to the Petitioner to the media pending investigation, and thereafter during trial;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Delhi Police to forthwith withdraw all allegations contained in the "Brief Note" dated 02.06.2020;"
2. The petitioner is an accomplished student and is currently enrolled as a student in M. Phil-Ph.D Program with the Department of Women''s Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. The petitioner claims that she has participated in several peaceful campaigns/protests and is actively involved in issues concerning women.
3. The petitioner claims that she is a critic of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and has been questioning the lack of response on the CAA from institutional agencies. The petitioner claims that she believes that the CAA is unconstitutional and has participated in peaceful protests for seeking repeal of the CAA and a stop to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process.
4. The petitioner claims that she has all along advocated a peaceful approach to the criticism of the CAA. She asserts that she firmly believes in the principles guaranteed by the Constitution of India and has chosen to criticize the CAA believing that the same is unconstitutional.
5. The petitioner is involved in four FIRs: FIR No. 48/2020 registered with Police Station Jafrabad; FIR No. 50/2020 registered with Police Station Jafrabad; FIR No. 59/2020 registered with Police Station Crime Branch; and FIR No. 250/2019 registered with Police Station Darya Ganj. The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 48/2020 but was released on bail in the said FIR. She was arrested in FIR No. 250/2019 but was released on bail in that FIR as well. The petitioner is currently in judicial custody in FIR No. 50/2020. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner was remanded to police custody in FIR No. 59/2020 till 08.06.2020.
6. The petitioner''s grievance in the present petition stems from a "Brief Note" dated 02.06.2020 (hereafter referred to as ''the impugned note'') circulated by the Delhi Police to various media agencies. The impugned note disclosed names of two girls including the petitioner and alleged that they belong to ''Pinjra Tod'' Group and were actively involved in hatching a conspiracy to cause riots near Jafrabad Metro Station.
7. The impugned note disclosed that the Delhi Police was filing charge sheets in two cases on that date (that is, 02.06.2020). The first is referred to as ''the Jafrabad Riots Case'' - FIR No. 50/2020 dated 26.02.2020 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/333/323/283/ 188/427/307/302/ 120B/34 of the IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 registered with PS Jafrabad. The second case is referred to as Tahir Hussain case that arises from FIR No. 101/2020 dated 25.02.2020 under Sections 109/114/147/148/149/ 186/353/395/427/435/436/452/454/153A/505/120B/34 of the IPC & Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with PS Khajuri Khas.
8. The information regarding FIR No. 101/2020 is not relevant for the purposes of this petition, as the petitioner''s grievance relates to the contents of the impugned note that relate to the case arising from FIR No. 50/2020 (the Jafrabad Riot Case).
9. The said FIR was registered on the statement made by one police official from PS Jafrabad. He had, inter alia, reported that there were demonstrations and protests against enactment of the CAA at various places and the situation was tense. He, inter alia, reported that on 25.02.2020, a large crowd of one community had collected at the spot near Crescent School and was protesting against the CAA. Demonstrators from another communit
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
