TheLeaflet
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Advisory Board
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Republic Day Special on Citizenship
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The Leaflet Specials- Year 2020
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Advisory Board
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Republic Day Special on Citizenship
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The Leaflet Specials- Year 2020
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers
No Result
View All Result
TheLeaflet
No Result
View All Result
in Criminal Justice System Criminal Law Democracy and Rule of Law Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press Fundamental Rights Judiciary Rule of Law

Bombay HC on media trials: provides indicative list of what will amount to contempt of court

The LeafletbyThe Leaflet
January 18, 2021
in Criminal Justice System, Criminal Law, Democracy and Rule of Law, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Fundamental Rights, Judiciary, Rule of Law
Ironic HC Order Makes Even Voter’s List Illegal: Shailesh Gandhi

The Bombay High Court Monday handed down a significant ruling against media trials -a matter of debate of late after the suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and G.S.Kulkarni directed that no report/discussion/debate/ interview should be presented by the media that could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case or any such person who may be relevant for any investigation, with a view to stealing a march over competitors in reporting a story.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S.Kulkarni.

The bench said in a case of suicide, the media must exercise restraint and refrain from depicting the deceased as a person of weak character or intruding in any manner into their privacy.

It provided a list of situations which, according to the Court, caused prejudice to an ongoing investigation which media houses must desist from referring or reporting-

  • Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;
  • Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;
  • Analyzing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;
  • Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;
  • Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;
  • Criticizing the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;
  • Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;
  • Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;
  • Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and
  • Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency;
  • Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the Cable Television Networks Act, 1994 (CTVN) Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and
  • Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation.

The bench said the list was not exhaustive but indicative, and any report carried by the print media or a programme telecast by a TV channel, live or recorded, ought to be such as to conform to the Programme Code, the norms of journalistic standards and the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Regulations; in default thereof, apart from action that could be taken under the prevailing regulatory mechanism, the erring media house could make itself liable to face action in contempt, i.e., criminal contempt.

The High Court also said media houses should guide guest speakers to refrain from making public utterances likely to obstruct the administration of justice and attract contempt. Muting speakers if they tend to go off at a tangent could be one of several ways to avoid contempt.

Commenting on the reporting by Times Now and Republic TV, the High Court said these two channels prima facie committed criminal contempt of Court but stopped short of initiating contempt proceedings.

“In the process, in an attempt to out-smart each other, these two TV channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation thereby exposing, what in their perception, Mumbai Police had suppressed, caring less for the rights of other stakeholders and throwing the commands of the Cr.P.C. and all sense of propriety to the winds”, the High Court said.

Bombay HC admonishes Times Now and Republic TV. Says Reports/ discussions/ debates/interviews on the death of #SushantSinghRajput flew thick and fast from these channels in brazen disregard of the rule of law, the edifice on which the country’s Constitution rests.#MediaTrial pic.twitter.com/AUwAcWZbBY

— The Leaflet (@TheLeaflet_in) January 18, 2021

It said reports/ discussions/ debates/interviews on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput flew thick and fast from Republic TV and Times Now in brazen disregard of the rule of law, the edifice on which the country’s Constitution rests.

“These TV channels took upon themselves the role of the investigator, the prosecutor as well as the Judge and delivered the verdict as if, during the pandemic, except they, all organs of the State were in slumber”, the High Court observed.

It also observed that the dignity of an individual, even after he is dead, cannot be left to the mercy of the journalists/reporters. The same, being part of Article 21 (Right to Life and personal liberty), has to be protected.

The court was ruling on a batch of petitions filed against the media trial that followed the suicide of Sushant Singh Rajput. Former police officers from Maharashtra, as well as activists, lawyers, had approached the Court restraining media houses from conducting “media trial” in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.

Read the Judgment

Click to access Bombay-HC.pdf

Tags: Bombay High Courtcriminal Investigationfair trialLeaflet ReportsMedia Trialright to lifeSlider PostSushant Singh Rajput

Related Posts

In Fight for Justice, Defence Lawyers in Delhi Riots Cases Challenged it All
Rule of Law

Delhi HC once again berates police for media leaks in Delhi riots case; asks them to fix responsibility

byThe Leaflet
How Long Must Poorer Nations Wait for Access to Covid Vaccine?

Delhi HC examines possibility of vaccine priority for judges, lawyers in Delhi; seeks affidavit from Serum Institute, Bharat Biotech about production, transport, storage capacity

byThe Leaflet
SC issues a slew of directions to ensure justice delivery amidst Corona Virus pandemic 
Fundamental Rights

Petition challenging blood donation guidelines as discriminating based on sexual orientation, gender identity: SC issues notice to Centre, NBTC, NACO

byThe Leaflet

Editor's Pick

New Media Rules: An Over The Top Distraction?

New Media Rules: An Over The Top Distraction?

byVickram Crishna

Bakerwals Await Grazing Rights in Ladakh After Forest Rights Act Applied to J&K

Bakerwals Await Grazing Rights in Ladakh After Forest Rights Act Applied to J&K

byRaja Muzaffar Bhat

Does Latest Indo-Pak Ceasefire Arrangement Signal Lasting Peace?

Does Latest Indo-Pak Ceasefire Arrangement Signal Lasting Peace?

byPratik Patnaik

15th Finance Commission recommendations favour neo-liberal fiscal centralisation that may affect states

15th Finance Commission recommendations favour neo-liberal fiscal centralisation that may affect states

byDr. C. P. Chandrashekhar

Latest by TheLeaflet

In Fight for Justice, Defence Lawyers in Delhi Riots Cases Challenged it All

Delhi HC once again berates police for media leaks in Delhi riots case; asks them to fix responsibility

March 5, 2021
How Long Must Poorer Nations Wait for Access to Covid Vaccine?

Delhi HC examines possibility of vaccine priority for judges, lawyers in Delhi; seeks affidavit from Serum Institute, Bharat Biotech about production, transport, storage capacity

March 5, 2021
SC issues a slew of directions to ensure justice delivery amidst Corona Virus pandemic 

Petition challenging blood donation guidelines as discriminating based on sexual orientation, gender identity: SC issues notice to Centre, NBTC, NACO

March 5, 2021
Petition challenging appointment of Jamia VC Najma Akhtar dismissed by Delhi HC

Petition challenging appointment of Jamia VC Najma Akhtar dismissed by Delhi HC

March 5, 2021

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!

Follow Us

© 2020 TheLeaflet

SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES
×

Subscribe to The Leaflet

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Leaflet and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Advisory Board
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Republic Day Special on Citizenship
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The Leaflet Specials- Year 2020
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers

© 2020 TheLeaflet