Court denies petitioners' request to interview convict, citing interference concerns. Emphasizes press freedom balance.

The Court declined the petitioners' request to interview the convict due to concerns about potential interference with the ongoing investigation and trial. The Court emphasized the need to balance press freedom with public order and highlighted the accused's right to silence and protection against self-incrimination. The petitioners were advised to revisit their request after the charge-sheet was filed. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Right of journalists to interview a convict.
2. Freedom of press under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Impact of media interference on ongoing investigations.
4. Right of an accused to silence and protection against self-incrimination.
5. Balance between freedom of press and public order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Journalists to Interview a Convict:
The petitioners, accredited journalists associated with a News Agency and a T.V. Channel, sought permission to interview a life convict, who was also an accused in a high-profile murder case. They argued that interviewing the convict would provide the public with various possible angles of the incident, asserting that their right to propagate ideas is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

2. Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the inaction of the respondents in granting permission violated their fundamental rights. They emphasized that freedom of press, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been interpreted as part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The importance of press freedom was highlighted through various Supreme Court judgments, which recognized the press as a public educator essential for a democratic society.

3. Impact of Media Interference on Ongoing Investigations:
The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, argued that the case was at the primary stage of investigation and any media interference could negatively affect the investigation. The Court noted that while the press has the right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute and must be exercised without meddling with the course of investigation or prosecution of cases. The Court emphasized that any intrusion by the media could mislead or water down the prosecution and impair the trial.

4. Right of an Accused to Silence and Protection Against Self-Incrimination:
The Court underlined that under Indian Criminal Law, the State has the prerogative to prosecute individuals, and accused persons have the right to silence. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the Evidence Act ensure that any statement made by an accused during investigation cannot be used against them. Article 20(3) of the Constitution further protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against themselves. The Court held that neither the State nor the press could invade this right, as it would expose the accused to several perils and make their condition vulnerable.

5. Balance Between Freedom of Press and Public Order:
The Court recognized the crucial role of the press but noted that unrestricted freedom could lead to disorder and anarchy. The Court cited various judgments to emphasize that the freedom of press must be balanced with public order, decency, and morality. The Court expressed concern over the sensational and unedited reporting by the electronic media, which could have a significant impact on society and the judicial process. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, which criticized the phenomenon of "trial by press" and its potential to cause miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the petitioners' request to interview the convict could not be granted at this stage due to the potential impact on the ongoing investigation and the trial. The Court suggested that the petitioners could renew their request after the charge-sheet was filed. The writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.

---