Kerala High Court Orders Probe into Media's 'Flagrant Violation' of Gag Order in Actor Dileep's Trial

Ernakulam, Kerala – The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the State Police Chief to conduct an inquiry into allegations of "flagrant violation" of a court-imposed gag order by media houses reporting on the ongoing sexual assault trial involving prominent actor P. Gopalakrishnan, popularly known as Dileep.

Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, observing that the allegations "cannot easily be brushed aside," ordered the police to submit a report within two weeks and initiate appropriate legal action if the claims are found to be true. The order reinforces the strict legal prohibitions against publishing details of in-camera trial proceedings, particularly in cases of sexual offenses.

Background of the Petition

The petitioner, actor Dileep, is the eighth accused in a sensitive criminal case (SC No.118/2018) involving charges under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (gang-rape). As mandated by Section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the trial is being conducted in camera to protect the privacy and dignity of the parties involved.

On March 19, 2020, the trial court had passed a specific order (Ext.P3) explicitly prohibiting any person from printing or publishing the proceedings of the case. Dileep approached the High Court alleging that despite this clear directive, several media outlets, including the third respondent 'Reporter TV', were continuously publishing and telecasting matters related to the trial, thereby committing an offense under Section 228A(3) of the IPC.

Arguments in Court

Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni, appearing for Dileep, argued that the media's actions constituted a "gross violation" of the trial court's order and the statutory provisions. He contended that the state and its investigating agencies had failed to take any action against the violators or to prevent future publications, necessitating the High Court's intervention.

The Director General of Prosecution, representing the State of Kerala, countered that the petition was not maintainable. He submitted that the petitioner's appropriate remedy was to approach the trial court that issued the original order or to file a complaint directly with the police.

Legal Framework: Sanctity of In-Camera Trials

The court's decision hinges on two critical legal provisions designed to protect the integrity of trials involving sexual offenses:

• Section 327(3) of Cr.P.C.: This section makes it unlawful for any person to print or publish any matter relating to in camera proceedings without the prior permission of the court.
• Section 228A(3) of IPC: This provision criminalizes the publication of proceedings related to offenses under Section 376 (rape) and its variants without court permission, making it punishable with imprisonment for up to two years and a fine.

The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India (2019) , which firmly established that matters falling under Section 228A of the IPC cannot be published without the court's express permission.

Court's Order and Reasoning

Justice Edappagath firmly asserted that a court order passed under Section 327(3) of the Cr.P.C. "is to be honoured in its letter and spirit." Finding merit in the petitioner's grievances, the court issued the following interim directions:

> "The 1st respondent [State Police Chief] shall conduct an enquiry as to the allegations made in this original petition regarding the flagrant violation of Ext.P3 order and file a report at this court within two weeks. Needless to say, if any such allegation is found to be true, appropriate action under law shall also be initiated."

Implications of the Ruling

The High Court's interim order serves as a strong reminder to the media about its legal and ethical obligations when reporting on sensitive court cases. By directing a formal police inquiry, the court has signaled its intolerance for the breach of gag orders meant to ensure a fair trial and protect the identities and dignity of those involved. The case will be heard again after two weeks, upon the submission of the police report.