Balancing media freedom with the right to a fair trial is essential; existing legal norms adequately address identity protection of accused in sexual offence cases.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2026 Syam Kumar V. M., J.

This writ petition is filed inter alia seeking direction to protect the identity of the accused persons in rape and sexual offence cases, on the premise that similar protection has already been afforded to the victims of such offences. A further prayer has also been sought to put in place a gender-neutral legal framework as well as to evolve suitable guideline for recognising and addressing sexual offences against male victims.

2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent detailing the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point and also explaining the legal position from the constitutional angle under Article

19(1)(a) as well as the right of the media.

3. We have heard Mr. Muhammed Bilal S., who is appearing in person.

4. The crux of the contentions put forth by the petitioner is that insofar as the names and details of the accused are made available to the media, there is a possibility of their name being tarnished even before a trial takes place and a final decision is arrived at in the matter by the criminal court. There is a substantial possibility of the honour and self-respect of the victim being tarnished due to media trial as well as due to the discussions about the individual on social media. Even if subsequently acquitted the stigma remains to haunt the individual for a life time.

5. We have heard Ms. B. Vinitha, learned Senior Government Pleader on the point and perused the affidavit filed.

6. Reliance is placed by the learned Senior Government Pleader on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI ¹, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had comprehensively examined the issue of prejudicial publicity and its impact on the right to a fair trial. Placing reliance on the said dictum, it is

1 (2012) 10 SCC 603

pointed out that it is now trite that any order restraining publication or postponing media reporting should only be an exceptional measure which could be resorted to only when there exists a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice, and such orders must satisfy the twin test of necessity and proportionality, and cannot be issued as a matter of routine or as general guidelines applicable across all cases.

7. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down in Asharam Bapu v. Union of India², wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued a slew of directions regarding restriction on the media from reporting pending criminal cases.

8. Reliance is also placed on the dictum of the Larger Bench of this Court in Dejo Kappan v. Deccan Herald and Others ³, wherein the same subject issue was examined in detail and media reporting in the context of pending criminal proceedings and the constitutional balance between freedom

2 (2013) 10 SCC 37

3 (2024) 6 KLT 279

of the press and the right to a fair trial of the accused were discussed.

9. We note that in Dejo Kappan (supra), after detailed exposition of the rights inter se of the media to report about pending criminal matters for the information of the general public vis-à-vis the rights of the accused to a fair trial as well as protection of his fundamental rights, it has been held by this Court that media's right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and must be balanced against the individual's right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. While recognising the media's critical role in democracy, this Court had emphasised the duty of the media to provide accurate and contextually correct reporting regarding crimina