HC says media trials amount to contempt of court; frames rules

The Bombay High Court said onMonday that media trials amounted to contempt of court andurged the press not to cross the proverbial ''Lakshman Rekha''as it found coverage of the Sushant Singh Rajput case by somenews channels as ''contemptuous''.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GSKulkarni held that the press, particularly Republic TV andTimes Now, ''crossed boundaries'' in their reportage on thedeath of Bollywood actor Rajput, who was found hanging in hisapartment in suburban Bandra on June 14, 2020.

The bench said ''the two channels started a viciouscampaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justiceand the saviours of the situation.'' It went on to say that some of their reportageamounted to contempt of court but restrained from taking anyaction against them.

The court also issued a set of guidelines on reportingof suicides or ongoing investigations into sensitive cases atit urged the press not to cross the proverbial ''LakshmanRekha'' (a line not to be overstepped) on their coverage.

The bench delivered its verdict on a bunch of PILsseeking guidelines or a statutory mechanism to restrain presscoverage on the events and probe following Rajput's death.

The pleas had also alleged that some TV channels hadbeen running a negative campaign against the Mumbai policethat was probing the 34-year-old actor's death before it wastransferred to the CBI.

The court said that while in some prominent cases suchas the deaths of Priyadarshini Mattoo, Jessica Lal and NitishKatara, the accused persons could have escaped unpunished ifnot for media intervention, the press must not be''overzealous'' in its reportage.

The HC held the Mumbai police could not be accused bythe electronic media of any wrongdoing.

''We need to remind that every journalist/reporter hasan overriding duty to the society of educating the masses withfair, accurate, trustworthy and responsiblereports relatingto reportable events/incidents and above all to the standardsof his/her profession,'' the bench said.

''Thus, the temptation to sensationalise should beresisted,'' it said.

The court said the existing self-regulatory mechanismssuch as the National Broadcasters' Association (NBA) or theNational Broadcasters' Federation (NBF), that attempted toregulate the content of the electronic media, could not takethe character of a statutory mechanism.

The bench said while the press had its right to freespeech and expression, the same could not infringe upon therights of a citizen.

''As it is, dignity of an individual, even after he isdead, cannot be left to the mercy of the journalists/reporters,'' the HC said.

The bench issued a slew of guidelines for media housesto follow while reporting on suicides or ongoinginvestigations into sensitive cases.

It said the guidelines aimed to ''remedy some ills thathave so longremained unchecked for the lack of strictenforcement of the regulatory control mechanism.'' The guidelines mandate that the media refrain fromprinting or displaying anything that depict someone who hascommitted suicide as one having had a ''weak character,'' orprinting or broadcasting anything that might cause prejudiceto an ongoing probe.

The press must not hold interviews with witnesses, oranalyse victims' and witnesses' statements that might beadmissible as evidence in a court.

It must not publish confessional statements of accusedpersons at the trial stage, and it must not publish orbroadcast photos of accused persons or criticise probeagencies on the basis of ''half baked'' information, the HCsaid.

It must not recreate crime scenes or predict futurecourse of action of an ongoing probe, the HC said.

The bench said the press must not indulge in''character assassination'' of any individual and that it mustnot violate guidelines of the Cable TV Act.

The petitioners had said that the contempt of courtproceedings must be initiated for any breaches by the pressfrom the time of registration of a case.

The HC, however, said that such proceedings could beinitiated only after a case reached the stage of judicialproceedings and not at the stage of the FIR.

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

At the time, the bench had asked the Union governmentif there existed any statutory mechanism to regulate thecontent broadcast by the electronic media akin to theregulatory mechanism exercised by the Press Council of India(PCI) for the print media.

The bench had also asked at the time if there existedany vacuum in law on the issue.

The Union government had said that there was no voidin the existing legal framework on regulating the contentbroadcast by the electronic media.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor GeneralAnil Singh had said there existed adequate statutory as wellas self-regulatory mechanism for the media, including newschannels, to follow while printing or broadcasting any newsitems.

Private TV news channels, that are a party to thecase, had argued that the self-regulatory mechanism wasadequate and that no new statutory mechanism or guidelineswere required to control the media.

Following weeks of exhaustive arguments, the bench hadon November 6 last reserved its verdict on the PILs seekingthat the press, particularly news channels, be restrained intheir reportage on the death of Rajput.