Point of Law: Directing an accused to give a voice sample during process of investigation for comparison, would not fall within vice of Article 20(3) as they are only materials for comparison in order to lend assurance to the court on inference based on other pieces of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. Petitioners are persons in control of a Television News Broadcasting Channel by name “Reporter TV.” By the impugned order, they have been directed to produce news items, including discussions and interviews broadcasted during the period from 25.12.2021 to 21.10.2022 in connection with the trial of a pending case. The direction was issued pursuant to a petition seeking reference to this Court under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners for broadcasting details of the trial, repeatedly.

2. The second respondent is the 8th accused in S.C. No. 118 of 2018 on the files of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and is facing an indictment for the offence including rape in the said case. The prosecution alleges that on 17.02.2017, a movie actress in the Malayalam film industry was raped by the first accused. Subsequently, on 10.07.2017, the second respondent, who himself is a movie actor, was arrayed as the 8th accused. The trial of the said case is going on, and a large number of witnesses have already been examined. In the meantime, despite section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and the conduct of proceedings in camera, details of the case, including scandalous and malicious statements, were allegedly published in the media. Hence the second respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 661 of 2020 and by order dated 19.03.2020, the learned Sessions Judge directed that nobody shall print or publish the proceedings in connection with the trial of S.C. No. 118 of 2018, except the matters permitted in Nipun Saxena and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 703.

3. While so, second respondent again filed Crl. M.P. No. 2478 of 2021 on 30.12.2021 seeking a reference to the High Court under section 15(2) of the Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners herein. It was alleged that, from 25.12.2021 onwards, the petitioners, who are in charge of the television news channel called ‘Reporter TV’ indulged in broadcasting false, fabricated and misleading matters relating to the trial with a view to cause prejudice against the court and even the judicial system and in an orchestrated attempt to derail the trial of the case. According to the second respondent, despite the trial being conducted as in camera, the TV news channel carried on false propaganda in clear violation of the expressed statutory prohibition causing not only a media trial but also great prejudice to the court and the parties involved. The content of the programme telecasted on 25.12.2021 was produced as a DVD, pointing out that the conversation broadcasted on the said date was a blatant interference in the subject matter of the litigation. It was also contended that the broadcast was made with the expressed knowledge that the Sessions Case was directed to be conducted in camera. It was further alleged that a parallel trial was being conducted by the petitioners herein through the TV channel, with sinister motives and designs.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners, denying the allegations. It was stated that the restriction under section 327(2) Cr.P.C exists only in reporting transactions that happen inside the court hall and form part of the enquiry and trial only and that when persons come forward and disclose shocking things through the TV channel, such statements cannot be attributed as contemptuous.

5. While the aforesaid petition was pending consideration, another petition was filed by the second respondent as Crl. M.P No. 689/22 in Crl. M.P No. 2478 of 2021 for accepting a pen-drive as evidence of various channel discussions and interviews conducted on several days by the petitioners herein.

6. The aforesaid petition was also objected to by the petitioners contending that the pen-drive produced contained portions of interviews and news-hour clippings, which are only short clippin