Press has duty to inform public about crimes but should not engage in sensationalism: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that even though the press has the duty to inform the public about crimes, reasonable restrictions need to be in place restraining it from publishing material in criminal trials which sensationalises news [Indo Asian News Channel Pvt. Ltd. v TN Suraj & Ors.].

A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Sophy Thomas held that the requirements of a fair trial and investigation need to be maintained sacrosanct, while protecting the right of the press to report truthfully and faithfully.

"It is the well accepted thumb rule that the Press shall not indulge in sensationalism; or in speculating upon the guilt or otherwise of any accused or other individual; or to create an opinion about the comportment or character of a person involved in the Trial; and not to embellish, by impelling or sponsoring an opinion they seek. Though the Press has a duty to inform the public, the publication of lurid details and other sensitive investigative inputs, which are within the sole jurisdiction of the courts to decide upon, certainly require to be put on a tight leash," the Court said in its judgment.

The Court held thus while considering an appeal moved by a media company against the ex-parte interim order issued by a single-judge of the Court restraining Reporter TV from publishing any item regarding Malayalam cine actor Dileep's brother-in-law, Suraj, while covering the 2017 actress assault case.

The Court relied heavily on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited & Ors. v Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. in which it was declared that orders postponing reporting of certain phases of criminal trial (including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant) can be applied for a short duration and solely in cases of “real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial.

In the instant case, the Court opined that the single-judge's order restraining Reporter TV from publishing "any item" concerning or relating to the appellant travels beyond the reasonableness of the restrictions sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Sahara and other judgments covering the field.

"The term 'any item' is not merely very vague, but would also cause an unfair fetter on the Press to make a fair reporting within the parameters of law, and therefore, we feel it necessary to modify the same, though to a very limited extent," the Court said.

Therefore, the Court vacated the previous interim order to the extent to which it restrained the appellant from reporting 'any item' relating to Dileep's brother-in-law but clarified that they shall not engage in sensationalism, or pursue any line of reportage intended to forge an impression against him or any other person in the crime.

The 2017 case concerns the abduction and rape of a popular Malayalam actress allegedly at the behest of Dileep and carried out by his associates.

The trial is currently underway before the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI )-III who issued a gag order early on during the trial.

Towards the end of 2021, media reports surfaced regarding a further conspiracy by Dileep and his brother-in-law, among others, to do away with the police officers investigating the case.

A separate FIR was registered in that case against 6 persons, including Dileep and Suraj. They were all granted anticipatory bail in the matter.

However, the media glare on the case has been increasing especially since the registration of the new FIR and after the survivor actress herself recently took to social media to speak of her journey.

Dileep has approached the Court with a plea to restrain the media, especially Reporter TV, from reporting on details of the trial in the 2017 case.

Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appeared for the appellant while Senior Counsel George Poonthottam and advocate Navaneeth Krishnan appeared for the respondent-accused.

Senior Government Pleader Bijoy Chandran appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]