JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is aggrieved by the publication of Exts. P2 and 4 by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which, according to him, contain materials that violate his right to reputation, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession. He claims that he has more than twenty years of experience in the field and adorned various coveted positions, including that of CFO and CEO in different reputed companies in India and abroad, and that he was conferred with many awards and recognitions both in the US and India for his contributions in his field.

3. In 2021, Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, registered a crime against the petitioner as Crime No.304/2021, alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(l) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The allegation is that the petitioner committed sexual assault and rape on the victim, who was his old classmate, after giving her a false promise of marriage. The petitioner denied those allegations. According to him, a false case has been foisted against him.

4. The petitioner was arrested on 12/10/2021 and remanded to judicial custody. He moved an application for regular bail at the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge II dismissed the bail application on 29/10/2021 as per Ext. P3 order. Thereafter, an application for bail was moved before this court, which was allowed on 19/11/2021 as per Ext. P1 order. The petitioner was released from custody on the same day.

5. During the investigation, respondent No.3 (The New Indian Express) published an online write-up about the case of the petitioner titled “Man in Jail for ‘rape’ after Friends’ Reunion”. Its printout is marked as Ext. P2. The write-up, which identifies the petitioner by his name, provides the details of the alleged act, including the version of the police, victim, and defence, and the fact that the Sessions Court dismissed the bail application with its reasons.

6. The respondent No.4 (India Kanoon) republished Ext. P1 bail order on their website and was indexed on search engines. A printout of the same is marked as Ext. P4.

7. It is alleged that Ext. P2 is a prejudicial publication containing sensitising, distorted and misleading facts which implicitly pronounce that the petitioner is guilty of rape, with a view to grab the attention of the people and Ext. P4 publication which exhibits his name, father's name and address is highly prejudicial to him especially since the case is in its preliminary investigation stage. It is further alleged that those publications violate the principles of presumption of innocence inasmuch as they tantamount to the pre-trial pronouncement of guilt of the petitioner that makes him and his family identifiable and thereby vulnerable. It is also alleged that apart from hampering the right to fair trial, Exts.P2 and P4 have also impacted his dignity, reputation, and privacy. According to the petitioner, as a direct result of the publishing of Exts. P2 and P4 online, he was terminated from his employment and is now jobless, and his wife, two minor daughters and aged parents are severely affected in various manners due to the publications. It is in this circumstance that the petitioner has approached this court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Declare that printing or publishing in print, electronic, social media, etc., the name of the petitioner/accused or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the petitioner/accused being identified and which should make petitioner/accused's identity known to the public at large, during investigation, pre-charge and pre-trial, as in Exts. P2 and P4 is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner/accused under Arts.14, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

ii) Declare that printing or publishing in print, electronic, social media