The Patna High Court has restrained the media from portraying an accused in the alleged Bihar tender scam as guilty while criminal proceedings remain pending, holding that press freedom cannot extend to conducting a media trial that prejudices an accused’s right to a fair trial.
Justice Ansul passed the interim directions while hearing a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a Special Vigilance Unit case. During the hearing, the petitioner alleged that despite nothing incriminating being recovered during searches conducted more than a year after registration of the FIR, television channels, newspapers, digital platforms and social media had extensively portrayed him as guilty through one-sided reports and prime-time debates.
Also Read Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in SC/ST Act Case; Finds No Proof of Caste Abuse in Public View
The Court also directed the Special Vigilance Unit to explain, by way of a counter affidavit, the reasons for the delay of more than one year in conducting raids after registration of the FIR. It further directed the petitioner to implead the Enforcement Directorate as a party after its counsel pointed out that the agency had not been arrayed as a respondent despite being a party in connected proceedings.
Examining the news reports placed on record, the Court noted that various publications had referred to the petitioner as an indispensable engineer, linked him to payment of commissions for securing government tenders, described him as avoiding answers, and reported alleged cash recoveries, while several digital and social media platforms had effectively declared him guilty before commencement of trial.
Referring to Supreme Court decisions including State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386, M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 686 and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603 , the Court reiterated that trial by media is antithetical to the rule of law and that one-sided reporting in sub judice matters can seriously prejudice a fair trial. At the same time, it acknowledged the importance of a free press under Article 19(1)(a), observing that the Court was not imposing a media gag but only regulating irresponsible reporting.
Pending consideration of the petition, the Court permitted all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms to report factual developments and court proceedings. However, it prohibited them from describing the petitioner as guilty, portraying him as having committed the alleged offences, publishing material that determines criminal liability, using expressions such as ‘mastermind’, ‘scamster’, ‘kingpin’, or similar descriptions implying guilt, or conducting media trials based on alleged confessions, investigation material or unproved documents. The restraint was extended to online portals, video streaming services, podcasts, social media accounts and other internet-based platforms, while clarifying that fair, accurate and objective reporting of court proceedings would remain permissible.
