2024 (2) TMI 1256 - HC - Money Laundering

Former MP fails to stop media reporting on FEMA investigation as public figures face higher scrutiny

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition by a former MP seeking to prevent media from reporting on an ongoing FEMA investigation. The court held that public ... Violation of right to privacy and dignity and right of fair investigation by press reports - Preventing any information from being leaked, including any confidential, sensitive, unverified/unconfirmed information, to the print / electronic media in relation to the ongoing investigation / proceedings - alleged violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that modern communication mediums advance public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that takes place in a democratic set-up. Dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same has always frowned upon by Courts. It is also equally well settled that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom of press and communication needs in a democratic society i.e., the right to be informed and the right to inform, however, not at the cost of right to privacy. The Apex Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, [1984 (12) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] has observed Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to governments and other authorities. The authors of the articles which are published in the newspapers have to be critical of the actions of government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power. The Petitioner herein is a former elected Member of Parliament and a public figure. The people are entitled to know about any news regarding the public figures. The accountability of persons who are public figures towards society is higher and they are subject to a higher level of public gaze and scrutiny - Since public figures are subject to closer scrutiny, unless the publications amount to harassment and invasion in private life of the individual public personality concerned or the family of the public personality, publications regarding the public life of such public personalities cannot be stopped from being published either by the Government or by the Orders of the Court. The newspaper cuttings do not deal with the private life of the Petitioner but are only reporting regarding the investigation that is being conducted against the Petitioner who is a public figure and same is unrelated to her private life. There is nothing in the news articles which would have the effect of invading into the privacy of the Petitioner or tend to impair the impartiality of the investigation or that it can have the effect of prejudicing the trial of the Petitioner in the event it is initiated. It is well settled that Gag Orders against the media can be passed only when it has the potential to prejudice any investigation or an ongoing trial. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/ED that the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 has been and is being followed, and after perusing the news articles, this Court is of the opinion that the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioner by way of the present writ petition need not be granted at this stage - Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Alleged leaking of information by Respondent No. 1/ED to the media.2. Compliance with the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India.3. Balancing the right to privacy of the Petitioner with the freedom of press.Summary:Issue 1: Alleged leaking of information by Respondent No. 1/ED to the mediaThe Petitioner, a former Member of Parliament, claimed that Respondent No. 1/ED leaked confidential and sensitive information to the media regarding an ongoing investigation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The Petitioner argued that such leaks occurred even before she received the official summons, thereby violating her right to privacy and dignity, and the right to a fair investigation.Issue 2: Compliance with the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of IndiaThe Counsel for Respondent No. 1/ED denied any leakage of sensitive information and asserted adherence to the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India on 01.04.2010. This Advisory outlines guidelines for the dissemination of information by investigating agencies to ensure that only authentic and appropriate information is shared without compromising the investigation or the legal/privacy rights of the accused/victims.Issue 3: Balancing the right to privacy of the Petitioner with the freedom of pressThe Court noted that the freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this right must be balanced against the right to privacy. The Court observed that public figures, such as the Petitioner, are subject to higher scrutiny and public interest in their actions. The Court referenced previous judgments, emphasizing that publications about public figures should not be stopped unless they amount to harassment or invasion of privacy.Conclusion:The Court found that the news articles in question did not invade the Petitioner's private life but reported on the investigation against her as a public figure. There was no evidence that the publications would impair the impartiality of the investigation or prejudice any potential trial. Given the assurances from Respondent No. 1/ED regarding compliance with the Advisory on Media Policy, the Court dismissed the writ petition and related applications, concluding that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner were not warranted at this stage.