2021 (2) TMI 1373 - HC - Indian Laws

Media houses must verify sources and follow broadcasting codes during ongoing investigations to prevent prejudicing cases

The Delhi HC balanced competing rights including fair trial, privacy, dignity, free speech, and public interest in a case involving media coverage of an ... Right to fair trial - privacy and dignity of the individual - sovereignty/integrity of the country - whether there could be reasonable restrictions that could be imposed considering the nature of the investigation that is currently taking place? - right to free speech and the right of the public to know - HELD THAT:- This Court has had the opportunity to view the videos, which have been placed on record of News18 and several other materials, which have been revealed from the record including the tweets by of Delhi Police and other publications which are online. There is no doubt that the regulation of content in print and electronic media has been a very contested issue across the world and India is no exception to that. The reasons for the same are not far to seek in as much as content regulation is viewed as being directly affrontive to the Right of free speech. The question that arises is what should be the ad interim directions that ought to be passed, if any, in order to ensure that all the three aspects – the Petitioner’s privacy, dignity and right of fair trial - the sovereignty and integrity of the country - & the right to free speech are equally protected and balanced. The various cases which are placed on record have laid down two principles which are clear that the right of the individual has always to be balanced with the right of the public and the public interest which is involved. The print and electronic media plays a very important role in ensuring that there is no sensationalism and that they adhere to responsible journalism. Recent coverage by the media definitely shows that there is sensationalism. While police briefings and the happenings in Court proceedings etc. can also be broadcasted and disseminated, leaked investigation material ought not to be disseminated so as to prejudice the investigation. The Delhi Police will strictly abide by the affidavit dated 18th February, 2021, which has been filed today as also the Office Memorandum dated 1st April, 2010, which is, admittedly, still in operation. The Delhi Police or other investigation authorities would, however, be, in terms of the said OM, entitled to conduct their briefings in accordance with law so long as no rights of the Petitioner are violated - Media houses shall also ensure that the telecast/broadcast by them is from verified/authenticated sources, though the sources need not be revealed. All disseminated content shall be in strict adherence to the `Programme Code’ as contained in the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 as also the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards prescribed by the News Broadcasters Association. List the matter for further hearing on 17th March, 2021. Issues Involved:1. Alleged leakage of investigation material by the police to the media.2. Compliance with program and advertisement codes by media houses.3. Police sharing investigation files and conducting press briefings.4. Privacy, dignity, and right to a fair trial of the petitioner.5. Sovereignty and integrity of the country.6. Right to free speech and public's right to know.Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Leakage of Investigation Material by the Police to the Media:The petitioner, an environmental activist, claimed that after her arrest, various messages and investigation materials were leaked by the police to the media, leading to widespread dissemination and allegations of her association with unlawful groups. The Delhi Police, through an affidavit, categorically denied these allegations, stating that no information or documents forming part of the case files were shared with any media houses or individuals, except for official press briefings. The court noted the conflicting claims and emphasized the need for a detailed examination to resolve this issue.2. Compliance with Program and Advertisement Codes by Media Houses:The petitioner sought directions for media houses to comply with the program code and advertisement code. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) confirmed that it is the nodal body for enforcing these codes under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) also stated that it would consider any complaints received in accordance with the code of conduct. The court directed media houses to ensure that their broadcasts are from verified and authenticated sources and adhere to the program code and the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards.3. Police Sharing Investigation Files and Conducting Press Briefings:The petitioner requested that the police should not share investigation files or conduct press briefings. The court directed the Delhi Police to strictly abide by their affidavit and the Office Memorandum dated 1st April 2010, which governs the conduct of briefings. The police were allowed to conduct briefings in accordance with the law, provided they do not violate the petitioner's rights.4. Privacy, Dignity, and Right to a Fair Trial of the Petitioner:The court emphasized the importance of balancing the petitioner's privacy, dignity, and right to a fair trial with the public's right to know and the sovereignty of the country. The court noted that leaked investigation material should not be disseminated to prejudice the investigation. The court directed media houses to exercise proper editorial control to ensure that the petitioner's investigation is not hampered.5. Sovereignty and Integrity of the Country:The court recognized the need to impose reasonable restrictions considering the nature of the ongoing investigation. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that content regulation does not infringe on the right to free speech while maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of the country.6. Right to Free Speech and Public's Right to Know:The court acknowledged the contested nature of content regulation in print and electronic media, emphasizing that while journalists cannot be asked to reveal their sources, the sources must be verified and authentic. The court directed that content should not be offensive or scandalizing and should be factual to the extent possible. The court also noted that the right of the individual must be balanced with the public interest.Interim Directions:The court issued several interim directions, including:- The Delhi Police must adhere to their affidavit and the Office Memorandum dated 1st April 2010.- Media houses must ensure broadcasts are from verified sources and comply with the program code and Code of Ethics.- Editorial teams must ensure that broadcasts do not hamper the petitioner's investigation.- If the charge-sheet is made public, its contents can be disseminated.- The petitioner's counsel assured the court that there would be no maligning of the police or investigation authorities.- The removal of content already in the public domain will be considered later.Next Steps:Replies to the stay application or the writ petition were to be filed within one week, with a rejoinder to follow. The matter was listed for further hearing on 17th March 2021. The NBSA was directed to communicate the court's directions to all its members.