Police can’t use media to influence public opinion to accept accused is guilty: HC

The police or any other agency cannot use the media to influence public opinion to accept that the accused is guilty of an alleged offence while the investigation is still going on as it has the "propensity to destroy the presumption of innocence," the Delhi High Court Monday said. The high court, which was dealing with the petition of arrested Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalitha alleging selective leak of certain evidence against her by the police, said that the cases concerning communal riots are "undoubtedly sensitive".

It said since the FIRs filed in such cases are not being publicly disclosed, it "considers it apposite to direct the respondent (Delhi Police) not to issue any further communication naming any accused or any witness till the charges, if any, are framed and the trial is commenced." Kalitha, a JNU student who was arrested on May 23, is lodged in Tihar Jail in a case associated with violence in old Delhi''s Daryaganj area during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December last year. In all, four cases have been registered against her, including in relation to the northeast Delhi riots earlier this year.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru in the 33-page judgement passed on Kalitha's plea said the trial is required to be conducted in an open court, unless directed otherwise, and added that as of now it does not consider it apposite to restrain the police from issuing statements at the stage of trial. The high court also said selective disclosure of information calculated to sway the public opinion to believe that an accused is guilty of the alleged offence, to use electronic or other media to run a campaign to besmirch the reputation or credibility of the person concerned and to make questionable claims of solving cases and apprehending the guilty while the investigations are at a nascent stage, "would clearly be impermissible". "This is not only because such actions may prejudicially affect a fair trial but also because it may, in some cases, have the effect of stripping the person involved of his or her dignity or subjecting him or her to avoidable ignominy," the court said, adding it is trite that "the right to live includes the right to live with human dignity".

It said due care should be taken to ensure that there is no violation of any legal, privacy and human rights of the accused or victims and, the police while briefing the media should not make any opinionated or judgmental statements. However, the high court said Kalitha's prayer to set aside the June 2 press note, issued by the police to the media about the case, cannot be acceded to.

Regarding the prayer that the police be refrained from issuing any further statements till the pendency of the trial, the high court noted that Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi had submitted that the response of the police has been measured and, therefore, they have only issued one note in respect of this case and this would also establish that they are not running a campaign to malign the petitioner. The high court noted that the April 1, 2010 office memorandum of police also stipulates that briefing should normally be done only on four stages of the case -- at the time of registration, arrest of the accused, chargesheeting of the case and at the final outcome of the case such as conviction or acquittal.

"The impugned note has been justified as having been issued at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Thus, in normal course, there would be no necessity of issuing any further communication till the final outcome of the case," it said. The high court observed "the police or any other agency cannot use the media to influence public opinion to accept that the accused is guilty of an alleged offence while the matter is still being investigated. "The same is not only likely to subvert the fairness of the investigation but would also have the propensity to destroy or weaken the presumption of innocence, which must be maintained in favour of the accused till he/she is found guilty after a fair trial." It said it is well settled that the right to receive information is one of the essential facets of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech and expression also encompasses the right to information.

"However, this right is not absolute and may be curtailed if it interferes with the administration of justice and the right of an accused to a fair trial. Concededly, there cannot be any blanket order proscribing the Delhi Police from disclosing any information regarding pending cases," the high court added. The high court, which was of the view that it is not necessary to name the accused in media reports, said it was unable to accept that the police communication violated the fundamental rights of Kalitha or provisions of any law.

The police had told the court that the nature of the case and allegations levelled against the woman were not revealed by the investigating agency first and it was the members of that group who disclosed the details on social media. Pinjra Tod group is a collective of women students and alumni of colleges from across Delhi.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured.