No statutory exemption to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies: Delhi Court

There is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies if such disclosure is necessary, observed a Delhi Rouse Avenue court on Tuesday while dealing with the fake CBI report case [CBI v Closure report].."There is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, more so where such disclosure is necessary for the purpose of aiding and assisting in investigation of a criminal case," stated the order. .Judge Anjani Mahajan noted that merely because the concerned journalists refused to reveal their respective sources, as stated in the final report, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should not have put a halt to the entire investigation.The investigating agency can always bring to the notice of journalists that the disclosure of the source is essential and vital to the investigation proceedings, the court added."The investigating agency is fully equipped under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure [to] require the public persons to mandatorily join in an investigation where the investigating agency is of the opinion that such public persons are privy to any facts or circumstances pertaining to the case under investigation and public persons are under a legal duty to so join the investigation," the Court held..The Court was dealing with a case involving allegations of forging an internal review note, attributing it to the CBI and running false news based on the forged note. .As per the averments in the report submitted by the agency, the Supreme Court on January 3, 2007, had directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets/wealth acquired by late Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members. A preliminary enquiry was registered on March 5, 2007, which was concluded on October 26, 2007. A status report based on the evidence collected was prepared and placed in two sealed cover envelopes before the top court of India. However, during the pendency of the case before the top Court, the Times of India, New Delhi published a news article captioned “CBI may admit Mulayam was framed-DIG’s internal note says agency had not verified in PIL." The same was also aired by electronic media, Star News and CNN-IBN..Subsequently, a complaint was filed by the CBI against unknown persons for preparing the fake and fabricated report to tarnish the reputation of CBI.It was alleged that such persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, with the intent to commit forgery, and used a forged document as a genuine one, which was then run as false and fabricated news.The closure report filed by CBI stated that it could not be established as to who forged the documents in question as the journalists did not disclose their source. Hence, there was no sufficient material or evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy, the agency submitted.A protest petition was also filed in the matter by one, Vishwanath Chaturvedi, contending that if the final report of CBI is accepted, the real culprits would go scot-free even though they have committed serious offences. However, the same was dismissed by the court, after observing that Chaturvedi was a rank outsider and had no locus to file the petition..The CBI told the court that, during the investigation, relevant documents were requisitioned from the concerned news channels but they had not given any document on which their news reports were based.To this, the court pointed out, "The CBI is well within its power to direct the concerned journalists/news agencies by way of notices u/s 91 CrPC etc. to provide the required information and bring to their notice the requisite facts of the case warranting disclosure of the information as per law.".The Court also noted that the names of journalist Bhupinder Chaubey and certain other witnesses, who were initially on a witness list, were inexplicably removed from the list of witnesses filed along with the supplementary report. This requires a re-look by the CBI, the Court opined.There were no statements under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of booked journalists, Deepak Chaurasia and Manoj Mitta on the record nor were they cited as witnesses in either of the lists of the witnesses filed by the CBI, the Court pointed out further..Additionally, as per averments in the final report, the two alleged forged status reports contained several paragraphs lifted from the undated status report of the CBI, which was kept in sealed cover for the perusal of the Supreme Court of India. However, the final report is totally silent on the investigation, if any, as to how an official document, i.e. the CBI status report kept in sealed cover, got leaked a day before it was to be filed before the apex Court, from the office of CBI, ultimately reaching the media, the Court noted..The Court said that an investigation is also required to be carried out by the CBI on the modus operandi adopted by the culprits for gaining access to or obtaining the official documents. The agency should probe the involvement of possible insiders in the alleged preparation of the forged review note, the court opined. Having expressed these concerns, the Court proceeded to reject the closure report and directed the CBI to carry out further investigation. .[Read Order]