Police Officers have made a practice of rushing to the media with speculations about sensational cases: Kerala HC

While dealing with a case concerning the widely-publicized murder of gemstone dealer, Harihara Varma, the Kerala High Court has voiced its concerns about investigating authorities speaking to the press about ongoing investigations, particularly in cases perceived to be sensational (Jithesh v. State of Kerala)..A Bench of Justices A Hariprasad and N Anil Kumar made critical observations over rising instances of police officers speaking to news portals about ongoing investigations.."In our view, on many occasions holding press meetings would spoil the quality of evidence collected during the investigation. It is our considered opinion, no police officer conducting investigation into a crime shall be authorised to divulge the facts ascertained during investigation through media.... It is a common knowledge that recently the practise of police officers rushing to media with speculative informations about on going investigations is on the increase", the Court observed..The defence counsel in the case had contended that “distorted news items about the incident appeared” in various news portals after a press conference held by the Additional Director General of Police. .The Court was told that the print and electronic media had published news items with ornamentations and embellishments to the accused's prejudice..Recording its “serious reservations” over police officers meeting the Press, expressing their views and indulging in speculation over ongoing investigations, the High Court requested the police to refrain from doing so..The Court stated that police officers were “not expected to reveal facts ascertained in the course of investigation” to the media..“We have serious reservations about police officers conducting press meetings in respect of criminal investigations, which they and media consider to be sensational ... They should remember that a criminal case has to be finally decided in a court of law.”Kerala High Court.The Court also referred to Kerala Police Rules in this regard which say that no press conference should be conducted without the permission of the State Police Chief. The Court explained that the police officer is “bound to exercise his discretion judiciously” before permitting a press conference..The Court also took note of a spate of circulars issued by the State Police Chief in light of investigating authorities’ growing practice of “airing personal views” through media. .As per these circulars, the Court noted that the DGP has allowed press interactions:.Where public safety is in questionWhere it is necessary to bolster public confidence in security arrangementsTo obtain public cooperation in a policing task or where public participation is required..With regard to updates on investigations, a circular suggested that a statement or a press release is issued once investigation in a case is complete, without divulging evidence and after appropriate permissions. .In view of the most recent circular that allowed only “designated officers” to speak to the press, the Court lamented that “all directives in these circulars are often flouted with impunity.”.The Court went on to quote two Supreme Court judgments on the issue i.e., Rajendran Chingaravelu v. RK Mishra and Romila Thapar and Others v. Union of India..In Rajendran Chingaravelu, the Supreme Court had held “Premature disclosures or 'leakage' to the media in a pending investigation will not only jeopardise and impede further investigation but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape from law.".Further in Romila Thapar, the Supreme Court had expressed its dismay at police disclosures stating, "police briefings to the media have become a source of manipulating public opinion by besmirching the reputations of individuals involved in the process of investigation. What follows is unfortunately a trial by the media. That the police should lend themselves to this process is matter of grave concern...".The High Court, however, held that the media disclosures did not adversely impact the case at hand and that "material witnesses examined on the prosecution side clearly identified the accused not based on any media publicity.".The case arose from the murder of Harihara Varma, a gemstone dealer, who was robbed and murdered at the home of a friend in 2012..The sentences for murder, robbery, and conspiracy handed out to four of the accused was confirmed by the High Court on Wednesday. A fifth accused was acquitted of all charges. The trial court's acquittal of the sixth accused was confirmed. .Read the Order here: