Amitha Reji George, Pune
On September 13, The Supreme Court ordered the government to issue rules within three months on how the police should inform the media about ongoing investigations. The primary objective of these guidelines is to combat biased reporting, speculative journalism, and the disturbing trend of media trials while upholding the crucial value of transparency.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that police briefings to the media should be tailored to specific circumstances in each case. The court strongly condemned any briefing that could lead to media trials, which may prematurely presume the guilt of an accused individual. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” was underscored as paramount.
“Biased reportage would harm the reputations of both the accused and the victims. It may moreover derail the investigation. The right to privacy is also a casualty,” the Court noted.
Biased or prejudiced reporting, the court said, not only tarnishes the reputation of those involved but can also disrupt ongoing investigations. It was also noted that such practices could infringe upon an individual’s right to privacy.
The case under scrutiny delves into two critical facets. First, it examines the procedures police must follow during encounters, an issue previously addressed in the 2014 judgement of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra. Second, it emphasises the protocols that law enforcement must adhere to when disseminating information to the media during ongoing criminal investigations.
Significantly, the Supreme Court highlights the pressing need to update existing guidelines, recognizing that the previous manual is over a decade old and that the landscape has evolved with the rise of social media. The Supreme Court has set a three-month deadline for the Union Home Ministry to draft these guidelines on media briefings by police personnel. Additionally, the court has directed the Director Generals of Police in all states to provide suggestions for the manual. Inputs from the National Human Rights Commission were also solicited in this process.
The Court’s remark that media briefings by police officers during ongoing investigations should be prohibited carries profound implications, touching upon Article 21, which relates to the right to life, liberty, and a fair trial. The Court also criticises the practice of releasing statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the media, which it views as contributing to a “parallel trial” in the media.
The court’s directive to create comprehensive guidelines for media briefings is seen as a significant step towards protecting the rights and dignity of individuals involved in criminal cases while ensuring the sanctity of the legal process. The hearing for this is scheduled in January.