Can excessive media reporting hinder justice, Bombay HC asks Centre
[ad_1]
The HC requested the government to state by Nov. 6 if such reportage adversely impacts the probe and subsequent trial, and if the court docket ought to lay tips on media reporting
The Bombay High Court on October 29 requested the Union authorities to make clear whether or not “excessive” reportage by the press on an ongoing investigation amounted to interference within the administration of justice below the Contempt of Courts Act.
A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni requested the federal government to state by November 6 if such reportage adversely impacts the probe and subsequent trial, and if the court docket ought to lay tips on media reporting.
“If there is excessive reporting, that can put an accused on guard, and he may resort to destroying evidence or absconding. Or if that person is actually innocent, the excessive media reporting can damage his reputation,” it mentioned.
“We would not like the media to cross it boundaries and we would also like to be within our boundaries,” the court docket mentioned and requested to state if such reportage would quantity to interference and if the federal government thought the HC had the jurisdiction to border tips.
“Whether excessive reporting by media in an ongoing investigation amounts to interference in administration of justice under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and should we lay guidelines? This is the issue before us,” the HC mentioned.
It additionally requested the federal government’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, to think about eventualities the place such reportage on an ongoing probe, the place a cost sheet was but to be filed, influenced the investigating officer, or resulted in a witness being threatened.
It requested if the court docket should step in and formulate tips to control the press to keep away from such eventualities.
“If media identifies that a person is a very vital witness, he could be won over, threatened, or he could be even physically harmed so that he does not give evidence,” it mentioned.
On the opportunity of the press influencing an investigating officer, the HC mentioned, “Think of a police officer. Can anyone guarantee that he will not be influenced?”
“He may be following a particular track. Media says no no this must be the track. He loses track and rounds up an innocent person,” it mentioned.
“Or, if the officer is competent and does not get influenced, then the media starts maligning him. Is this welcome in a society governed by rule of law?” the HC requested.
The court docket was listening to remaining arguments on a bunch of public curiosity litigations looking for that the media trial within the probe into actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s dying be stopped.
The pleas have been filed by some activists and retired cops.
On the earlier hearings, the HC heard the petitioners, non-public TV information channels, and the National Broadcasters Standards Authority (NBSA) on the necessity for a regulatory mechanism for the digital media.
The TV channels and the NBSA argued in favour of a self-regulatory mechanism and mentioned the State should not be given any management over their content material.
On Thursday, the HC mentioned it had anticipated the federal government to handle the court docket on the queries raised above.
It directed ASG Singh to file his written submission and deal with the court docket on November 6 on all of the questions raised by the Bench.
The court docket mentioned the media usually defended such reportage by saying it constituted investigative journalism.
However, investigative journalism meant “to lay bare the truth,” it mentioned.
“Is there any law which says that whatever an investigation agency collected as evidence should be laid before the public? Where is the obligation for the investigating officer to disclose evidence?” the HC requested.
“How does the post-mortem report come to the media unless of course it is disclosed? Should we lay down guidelines on these aspects?” the court docket sought to know.
The HC additionally mentioned if the press had entry to data that might assist a probe, then it ought to give such data to police below Section 38 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
[ad_2]
