Media trial hinders justice: HC on Sushant death case coverage

The Bombay High Court on Mondayasked media houses to exercise restraint when reporting onsuicide cases, saying ''media trial leads to interference andobstruction to administration of justice'' and amounts tocontempt of court.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni said the press must avoid discussions and debatesrelating to criminal investigations, and it should confineonly to informative reportage that is in public interest.

The bench also held that prima facie some reportage byRepublic TV and Times Now in the aftermath of the death ofactor Sushant Singh Rajput were ''contemptuous''.

The court said it had, however, decided againstinitiating any action against the two TV channels under theContempt of Courts Act.

The bench said media trials ran counter to theprogramme code framed under the Cable Television Networks(Regulation) Act.

It also passed a slew of guidelines for the press tofollow while reporting on sensitive cases.

The HC said such reportage by any media organisation,that obstructs an ongoing investigation or administration ofjustice in a case, will amount to contempt of court.

''Media trial leads to interference and obstruction toadministration of justice and violates programme code underthe Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act,'' it observed.

''Any reportage has to be in accordance with the normsof journalistic standards and ethics, else media houses standto face contempt action,'' it said.

The directions are a part of the verdict pronounced bythe bench on a bunch of public interest litigations (PIL)seeking that the press, particularly TV news channels, berestrained in their reportage on Rajput's death.

The HC said it had tried in its verdict to answerquestions on striking a balance among one's freedom of speechand expression, a fair investigation, one's right to a fairtrial and to what extent, if at all, should the press andmedia reporting be regulated, if it interfered with or tendedto obstruct the administration of justice.

It also said until there came a mechanism to regulatethe electronic media, TV channels should follow the PressCouncil of India's guidelines on reporting on suicides, andsensitive cases.

''Media should observe restraint in discussions aboutan ongoing investigation so as not to prejudice the rights ofthe accused and witness,'' the high court said.

''Publishing a confession alleged to have been made byan accused as if it is an admissible evidence without lettingthe public know about its inadmissibility should be avoided,''it said.

The HC said while reporting a suicide, ''to suggestthat the person was of weak character should be avoided''.

It also restrained media houses from reconstructingcrime scenes, interviews with potential witnesses, and leakingsensitive and confidential information.

''Investigative agencies are entitled to maintainsecrecy about an ongoing investigation and they are under noobligation to divulge information,'' the high court said.

The court also accepted the accusation made in thepleas that the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcastinghad ''abdicated statutory functions'' pertaining to regulationsrelated to reportage on Rajput's death.

Rajput, 34, was found hanging at his home in Bandraarea of Mumbai on June 14 last year.

Following weeks of exhaustive arguments, the bench hadon November 6 last year reserved its verdict on a bunch ofPILs seeking that the press, particularly TV news channels, berestrained in their reportage on the death Rajput.

The PILs, filed through senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, byactivists, private citizens, and a group of retired policeofficers, had also sought that TV news channels be stoppedfrom conducting a media trial into the case.

During the arguments, the Union government's counsel,Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, had said therealready existed adequate statutory as well as self-regulatorymechanism for the media, including TV news channels, to followwhile printing or broadcasting any news item.

Private TV news channels that are party to the casehad also argued that the self-regulatory mechanism wasadequate and no new statutory mechanism or guidelines wererequired to control the media.