The Supreme Court issued prospective directions to all States and Union Territories to adopt appropriate media-briefing policies for police based on a model manual prepared in the case.
The original proceedings were initiated by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) challenging misuse of police powers in Maharashtra, including issues around custodial deaths, encounters and related criminal procedure violations, and later expanded to address improper police interactions with the media that could prejudice fair investigation and trial.
Over time, the Court monitored compliance and sought broader systemic safeguards, which led to appointment of an Amicus Curiae to prepare a Police Manual for Media Briefing incorporating constitutional requirements, Union input and international best practices. The central thrust by civil liberties groups was to restrain prejudicial media briefings by investigating agencies and to ensure uniform, rights-compatible norms nationwide.
PUCL’s appeal and connected matters have been pending since 1999, with various interim orders. In the later phase, the Court asked Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, as Amicus Curiae, to draft a model “Police Manual for Media Briefing”, consulting the Union of India and drawing from global practices.
The Manual aimed at (i) standardising who may brief the press; (ii) what information may be disclosed at different stages of investigation; and (iii) how to avoid statements that could prejudice fair trial rights or stigmatise individuals before conviction. Despite repeated adjournments and opportunities, most States did not meaningfully respond or adopt a framework. By January 2026, the draft manual was ready but State action lagged behind.
The Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh expressed concern that uncontrolled press briefings by police and investigation agencies can violate rights of accused persons, compromise investigations, fuel trial by media and undermine the presumption of innocence.
The Court took note of the “laborious exercise” undertaken by the Amicus in preparing the Media Briefing Manual and expressed dissatisfaction with States’ lack of engagement, despite “time granted by this Court on earlier occasions”. It observed that it was not desirable to keep the matters pending indefinitely merely to secure State compliance.
In result, the Court disposed of the criminal appeals, writ petitions, and the contempt petition, and closed all pending applications. It directed all States and Union Territories to frame and adopt appropriate police media-briefing policies within three months from receipt of the order, expressly requiring that they take into account the “Police Manual for Media Briefing” prepared by the Amicus Curiae.
The Court ordered the Supreme Court Registry to upload the manual on the Court’s website within two weeks, thereby making it publicly accessible as a reference document for policy-making. The Court reiterated its appreciation for the Amicus’s assistance but made no further case-specific directions on PUCL’s original factual grievances.
