Back
Kerala HC Cracks Whip: Two-Month Deadline for Probes into Media's Alleged Trial by Broadcast in Dileep Case
In a decisive move to curb delays in high-stakes probes, the has ordered the state police to wrap up investigations into five FIRs registered against media outlets for violating a in the infamous actress assault case. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, presiding singly, set a firm two-month timeline, posting the matter for further hearing on . The directive targets Crime Nos. 2 to 6 of 2022, stemming from petitioner P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep's original petition against what he termed a " ."
From Assault Shadows to Media Storm: The Case Unfolds
The saga traces back to the abduction and assault of a prominent Malayalam film actress, where Dileep—initially the eighth accused in a alleged criminal conspiracy—was later acquitted by the in SC No. 118/2018. Amid the trial, Dileep approached the High Court in OP(Crl.) No. 23/2022, alleging rampant violations by media houses, including , of a , court order prohibiting the publication, broadcast, or telecast of trial proceedings.
Pursuant to that order, five FIRs were promptly registered at the . Yet, as revealed in court on , progress had stalled—no substantial investigation despite three years elapsed. The latest hearing on , addressed this inertia head-on, with the state updating on one completed probe (Crime No. 2/2022) and ongoing work in the rest.
Petitioner's Plea: End the ' ' Circus
Dileep's counsel, led by , hammered on the unchecked media frenzy prejudicing , urging enforcement of the through swift probes. They highlighted the irony: FIRs ordered by the court in 2022 lay dormant, allowing alleged violations to persist. The plea positioned the media actions as contemptuous, demanding accountability to protect judicial integrity.
Opposing counsel for the state ( and ) and respondent media (led by ) produced a statement from the Cyber Crime Inspector. It confirmed one filed but assured expeditious progress in others, without contesting the need for momentum.
Judicial Pushback Against Probe Paralysis
Justice Pratheep Kumar's bench zeroed in on the vintage of these 2022 FIRs, emphasizing procedural urgency under criminal law principles favoring timely justice. No precedents were explicitly cited, but the order echoes broader High Court supervisory powers under and in criminal original petitions to ensure investigations don't languish, preventing prejudice to accused or complainants alike.
The court drew a clear line: mere registration isn't enough—final reports must follow promptly, distinguishing this from routine cases by its link to a sensational trial under public glare.
Key Observations -
On Probe Status
:
"The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the statement of facts prepared by the Inspector of Police,
, stating that, out of the five crimes registered in the year 2022 as Crime Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2022, investigation was completed and
was filed in Crime No.2 of 2022 and also that, in the other crimes, investigation is progressing and the
will be filed as expeditiously as possible."
-
The Directive
:
"Considering the fact that these crimes are of the year 2022, there will be a direction to complete the investigation and file the
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months."
Deadline Set: Implications for Media and Magistrates
The court's order is unambiguous: Complete all pending investigations and file final reports within two months , with the next listing on . This not only revives the dormant FIRs but signals zero tolerance for investigative lapses in cases tied to court directives, particularly those safeguarding trial fairness.
For media houses, it's a reminder of boundaries; for police, a nudge toward efficiency. In Dileep's context—post-acquittal—the ruling underscores enduring scrutiny over case coverage, potentially influencing how sensational trials are reported nationwide and setting a precedent for expediting media-violation probes.
