[2023] 12 S.C.R. 370 : 2023 INSC 833
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the modalities to be
followed by the police in conducting media briefings during criminal
investigation.
Media – Media briefings/reporting by police personnel –
Propriety and procedure:
Held: Media reporting in criminal matters involves degree of
public interest associated with the fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)
(a) – Guidelines for conducting media briefings were prepared by
the Union Ministry of Home Affairs over a decade ago – Since
then with the upsurge in the reporting of crime, the print media,
the electronic and social media have evolved significantly – There
should be a Standard Operating Procedure which balances out the
considerations – There is a need to have a uniform policy – Nature
of the disclosure cannot be uniform since it must depend upon the
nature of the crime and the profile of the stake holders, including
victims, witnesses and the accused themselves – Disclosure should
not result in a media trial – Media trials are liable to result in a
derailment of justice by impacting upon the evidence adduced and
its assessment by the adjudicating authorities – In view thereof,
the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare a comprehensive
manual/guidelines on media briefings by police personnel, within
the stipulated period – Issuance of direction to all the Directors
General of Police to give their suggestions to the Union Ministry of
Home Affairs and the views of National Human Rights Commission
would also be considered.[Paras 6, 17,18,19 and 20]
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra
(2014) 10 SCC 635: [2014] 12 SCR 54; A K Gopalan
v Noordeen (1969) 2 SCC 734; Sahara India Real
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 371
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Estate Corporation Limited v Securities and Exchange
Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603: [2012] 12 SCR
256 – referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION :
Criminal Appeal No.1255 of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.1999-25.02.1999 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.1146
of 1997.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.1256, 1367 of 1999, Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.47 of 2011 In Writ Petition (C) No.316 Of 2008, Tc (C) No.27 of
2011 And Writ Petition (Civil) No.316 Of 2008
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. (AC)
Arunabh Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey, Mrs. Anshu
Vachher, Akshat Vachher, Ms. Abhiti Vachher, P. N. Puri, Prashant
Bhushan, Aditya Sharma, Ms. Apurba Pattanayak, M/s. Parekh &
Co., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Shobha Gupta,
Aditya Ranjan, Ms. Jessy Kurian, Ms. Tarjana Rai, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh,
Aditya Krishna, T A Khan, Wasim Quadri, Chinmayee Chandra,
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Diksha
Rai, Ms. Ragani Pandey, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Jayant Mohan, D. S.
Mahra, Anil K. Chopra, Anil Shrivastav, P. V. Yogeswaran, Guntur
Prabhakar, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Suvarna Singh, Sanjay Kumar
Visen, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Tanvi Anand, M/s.
Corporate Law Group, Samir Ali Khan, D. Mahesh Babu, Jatinder
Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra, T. Mahipal,
Gopal Singh, M. R. Shamshad, Manish Kumar, Ms. Shaswati Parhi,
Ravi Shanker Jha, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,
Sarvjit Pratap Singh, M/s. Coac, Ms. G. Indira, Abhisth Kumar, Ashok
Kumar Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan
Dutta, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Praveen Agrawal, Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, M. Shoeb Alam, M/s. Karanjawala & Co. Ms. Tulika
Mukherjee, Sudarshan Rajan, Sunny Choudhary, V. K. Verma, Rajat
Srivastav, T.C. Kaushik, Tarun Verma, Rajat Arora, Shibashish Misra,
Hrishikesh Baruah, Saumitra Srivastava, Ms. Radhika Gupta, Ms.
Ruchira Goel, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Raj Kumar, Kapil Sahni, Sabarish
372 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi Kumar, Naman
Dwivedi, Danish Saifi, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Rachana Gandhi,
Saurabh Trivedi, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Aravindh S., Abbas,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Shrama, Abhinav Mukerji,
Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Jainendra Ojha, Simanta
Kumar, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Manoj Kumar Sharma, Suraj
Singh, Bhuwan Chandra, Ashok Panigrahi, Merusagar Samantaray,
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Subhasish Mohanty, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia,
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, G. Prakash, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Arvind H. S., M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. V.K. Sharma,
V.N. Raghupathy, M.K. Maroria, Krishnanand Pandey, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
Petitioner-in-person
ORDER
1. This batch of cases raises two significant issues:
(i) The procedure to be followed by the police in investigating
police encounters; and
(ii) The propriety and procedure of media briefings by police
personnel.
2. The first issue, governing police encounters, has since been dealt with
in the judgment of this Court dated 23 September 2014 in People’s
Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra1
.
3. The second issue pertains to the modalities to be followed by the
police in conducting media briefings where a criminal investigation for
an alleged offence is in progress. The issue assumes significance,
particularly, in the context of the manner in which media reportage
takes place, particularly in crimes involving a degree of public interest.
4. Having regard to the ramifications of the issues involved, the Court
appointed Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior counsel, as Amicus
Curiae.
1 (2014) 10 SCC 635
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 373
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
5. A questionnaire was circulated by the Amicus Curiae in order to
elicit information from the States and Union Territories. Several
States, including the States of Bihar, Goa, Haryana, Jharkhand,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand have responded, besides
the Administrations of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh
and Puducherry. Observations have been submitted by the People’s
Union for Civil Liberties, one of the appellants in the batch of cases.
Other States, including the States of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have served copies of the replies
filed by them in a connected petition2
.
6. Media reporting on matters involving the commission of crimes
involves several aspects bearing on public interest. At a basic
level, the fundamental right to free speech and expression is directly
implicated. This engages the right of the media to disseminate news,
views and information and the right of the viewing public or readers
of printed news. There can be no gainsaying the fact that both the
media in pursuance of its fundamental right to the freedom of speech
and expression as well as the consumers of news, information and
ideas have a right to disseminate and to receive fair and unbiased
information. Criminal offences and investigation into them by the
law enforcement machinery involves significant elements of public
interest bearing upon the right to be informed and the right to know.
7. At the same time, there are competing considerations which are also
of immense significance. At one level, the accused whose conduct is
under investigation is entitled to a fair and unbiased investigation by
the police. Unfair reporting by the media has the potential to affect
public opinion and impinge upon the presumption of innocence which
is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. At the
stage of the investigation and even trial, every accused is entitled to
the presumption of innocence. Media reportage in a manner which
implicates the culpability of the person who is under investigation is
liable to seriously impinge upon the reputation and personal dignity
of the individual under investigation. Biased reporting also gives
2 Surat Singh v Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No 316 of 2008)
374 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
rise to public suspicion that the person under investigation has
committed the offence though the complicity of the accused is yet to
be investigated and, if a charge-sheet is submitted to be subjected
to the administration of criminal justice in accordance with law.
8. At another level, media reportage also impinges upon the right of
victims or, as the case may be, survivors of crimes. In a given
case, the victim may be a minor. In some cases, the nature of the
crime may involve the privacy of the victim, in cases such as those
involving gender violence. The publication of photographs and visuals
of the bodies of deceased victims of crime affects the very notion of
preserving the dignity in death.
9. While a disclosure by the media of relevant details involves public
interest associated with the fundamental right under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution, equally, the rights of the accused and of the
victims or, as the case may be, survivors of crimes have a direct
bearing on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which
is protected by Article 21.
10. At this stage, it would be material to note the provisions of the
Explanation to Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which
reads as follows:
“Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a judicial proceeding—
(a) is said to be pending—
(A) in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the
filing of a plaint or otherwise,
(B) in the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)1., or any other law—
(i) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the
charge-sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues
summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused,
and
(ii) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the
matter to which the proceeding relates, and in the case of a
civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 375
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a
case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal
or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or
revision is preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for
such appeal or revision has expired;
(b) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed
to be pending merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for
the execution of the decree, order or sentence passed therein
are pending.”
11. The manner in which the Explanation has been incorporated may
expose a person to a charge of contempt for reporting on a criminal
proceeding only after the charge-sheet has been filed or, as the
case may be, cognizance taken or summons/warrant issued. The
two hundredth Report of the Law Commission chaired by Justice M
Jagannadha Rao, a former Judge of this Court, noted the background
of the provision as it arose upon the report of the Bhargava Committee
under the auspices of a Joint Committee of Parliament. The Amicus
Curiae has adverted to the fact that the report of the Bhargava
Committee did not take notice of the decision in A K Gopalan v
Noordeen3 which treated the arrest of an accused as the point of
commencement for taking cognizance of criminal contempt. The
Law Commission in these circumstances made recommendations
for remedying the situation.
12. The ambit of these proceedings is confined to the pre-trial stage
where the investigation has been initiated and is continuing. The
Amicus Curiae submitted that any disclosure by the police about
an investigation must be cognizant of the fact that the information
as disclosed impacts not only upon the victim of the crime and the
accused, but on the rule of law. In its decision in Sahara India Real
Estate Corporation Limited v Securities and Exchange Board
of India4
, this Court underscored the need to maintain the balance
between the right of the accused under Article 21 and the right of
the media/public under Article 19(1)(a).
3 (1969) 2 SCC 734
4 (2012) 10 SCC 603
376 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
13. During the course of the submissions, the issues which have been
raised by the Amicus Curiae in the written note of submissions are
as follows:
“1. Who can brief the media?
2. At what stage is the briefing done?
3. How much information is to be shared at each stage?
4. What information cannot be shared?
5. Is the information to be shared or conveyed verbally or in writing?
6. What safeguards to be followed (no names of victims, no photos
of accused who have to stand Test Identification Parade, no
opinions/judgments, no disclosure of line of investigation or
technical knowhow, no information in National Security issues)
7. Whether copies of Press Releases are maintained by the police
department?
8. Disciplinary action against officers who do not abide by
instructions.”
14. A painstaking exercise has been conducted by the Amicus Curiae
in preparing a compilation containing:
(i) The Media Relations Handbook of the Los Angeles Police
Department;
(ii) The Press Relations Notice of the New York Police Department;
(iii) The Communication’s Advisory of the Association of Chief
Police Officers, UK;
(iv) The Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Metropolitan
Police, London in regard to Media Relations in June 2012;
(v) The Dorset Police’s Media Relations Guidelines;
(vi) The instructions prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation
more specifically in paragraphs 24.9 to 24.31 of the CBI Manual
titled “Policy Division”; and
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 377
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(vii) The Office Memorandum dated 1 April 2010 issued by the
Union Ministry of Home Affairs which contains an advisory on
the media policy of the police.
15. At this stage, it would be material to note that among the statutory
provisions, the following have a broad bearing on the issues which
are raised in the course of the proceedings:
● Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
● Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
● Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (earlier Section 21
of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000)
● Sections 8(1)(g) & (h) and 8(2) of the Right to Information Act,
2005
16. The Amicus Curiae has prepared the following suggestions on the
basis of which appropriate guidelines can be formulated for conducting
media briefings:
“1. Each district or town ought to have a Media Briefing Cell (MBC)
for interactions with the media. Such interaction / Press Releases
must be in writing and with the authorization of a senior police
officer. Press Briefs must be prepared on each case, which will
be the basis of any media briefings.
2. The briefing of the press can be done at any stage after an FIR
has been registered, an arrest effected or a raid conducted.
However, at the earliest stages, very little information must be
parted with, as facts would need full and complete confirmation.
3. Notwithstanding anything else, the primary concern of the police
ought to be the fair administration of justice without compromising
on individual rights of privacy or of presumption of innocence.
4. Information ought not to be released which would portray the
police as insensitive or vindictive or which would suggest the
pre-judging of an issue.
5. The location of the offence, especially in the context of
harassment, domestic violence, stalking etc., ought to be avoided
as it would compromise the victim.
378 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
6. In no circumstances may the identity of victims of sexual offences
and juvenile cases be divulged by the police. The same may
apply to the victims of continuing offences, i.e. abductions and
kidnapping. The police would also be careful to share details
of ongoing operations or investigative strategy that would alert
the offenders or compromise witnesses confidential informants.
7. The Press Briefs will be maintained as permanent records of
the media interactions of the police, with one copy at the Police
Station in question, one at the MBC and one at the District
Headquarters. All such briefs will be provided online as well.
8. Any breach of the above Guidelines must be strictly dealt with
departmentally, so that any such misadventure may be deterred.”
17. The guidelines of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs were prepared
over a decade ago on 1 April 2010. Since then, with the upsurge
in the reporting of crime not only in the print media, but in the
electronic and social media, it becomes extremely important that
there should be a Standard Operating Procedure which balances
out the considerations which we have noted above. There can
be no denying the fact that the disclosure of an official version of
the investigation would ensure against speculative crime reporting,
which may be of a dis-service both to the public interest involved
and the interest of the accused, prospective witnesses as well as
the victims and survivors of crime. There is, in that sense, a need
to have a uniform policy which can be adopted for nominating nodal
officers who would be available to share the official version at the
stage of investigation, consistent with the need to ensure that the
disclosure itself does not derail the course of the investigation. The
nature of the disclosure cannot be uniform since it must depend
upon the nature of the crime and the profile of the stake holders,
including victims, witnesses and the accused themselves. The age
and gender of the accused as well as of the victims would have a
significant bearing on the nature of the disclosure to be made. It
is equally important to emphasise that the nature of the disclosure
which is made by the police in the course of media briefings should
be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 379
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
pre-judging the guilt of the accused. The guidelines must duly factor
in the need to ensure that the disclosure does not result in a media
trial so as to allow for the pre-judging of the guilt of the accused.
Media trials are liable to result in a derailment of justice by impacting
upon the evidence which would be adduced and its assessment by
the adjudicating authorities.
18. Bearing in mind the above aspects, we are of the view that the Union
Ministry of Home Affairs should prepare a comprehensive manual
on media briefings by police personnel. Some of the considerations
which would weigh in balancing various issues of public interest while
the framing of guidelines have been flagged in the earlier part of
this order as well as in the questionnaire and the guidelines which
have been prepared by the Amicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae has
collated, for the purposes of formulation, the practices which have
been followed by police departments in other jurisdictions and by
the Central Bureau of Investigation and Union Ministry of Home
Affairs in India.
19. We direct that all the Directors General of Police shall, within a period
of one month from the date of this order, communicate to the Union
Ministry of Home Affairs their suggestions for the preparation of
appropriate guidelines. Thereafter, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs
shall proceed to prepare the guidelines after considering the views
which have been received from the Directors General of Police and
after consulting other stake holders including representative segments
of the print and electronic media who may have suggestions on the
issue. Organisations representing the print and electronic media
should also be consulted.
20. The National Human Rights Commission which has been represented
by Ms Shobha Gupta, counsel, has also prepared its response to
the questionnaire which was circulated by the Amicus Curiae. The
view point of the National Human Rights Commission shall also be
duly taken into consideration.
21. This exercise shall be completed by the Union Ministry of Home
Affairs by 31 December 2023.
380 [2023] 12 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORT: DIGITAL
22. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs shall furnish a copy of the
guidelines to the Amicus Curiae, Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
and to Ms Shobha Gupta, counsel for the National Human Rights
Commission.
23. List the proceedings in the second week of January 2024.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case : Directions issued.
