‘Media Bound By Higher Standards Of Accuracy Than Ordinary Citizens’: Calcutta HC Issues Guidelines For Coverage Of Recruitment Scam Case
The Calcutta High Court has issued a set of guidelines for various media houses as well as investigative agencies, in particular, the Enforcement Directorate (“ED’”) in a plea by Rujira Banerjee, wife of TMC-MP and Recruitment-scam accused Abhishek Banerjee, seeking the Court’s intervention against ‘incessant media coverage’ of the case.Earlier, the Court had expressed...
The Calcutta High Court has issued a set of guidelines for various media houses as well as investigative agencies, in particular, the Enforcement Directorate (“ED’”) in a plea by Rujira Banerjee, wife of TMC-MP and Recruitment-scam accused Abhishek Banerjee, seeking the Court’s intervention against ‘incessant media coverage’ of the case.
Earlier, the Court had expressed disinclination to ‘gag’ the media, and noted the Union’s objections that Banerjee’s wife being a foreign citizen could not enforce her Article 21 rights while stifling a citizen’s right to free speech.
Through the present order, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya set guidelines for both the media, and ED pertaining to the recruitment-scam investigation, and held:
“News”, presented as news, has to be objective, shorn of opinionated barbs and jibes. Cardinal pre-requisites of responsible journalism are accuracy in presenting facts and objectivity. When a news item is presented as a news item, in whatever medium – audio, visual or print – the same has to be utterly truthful and be able to be corroborated by concrete materials and sources. Not only do the media not have any extra freedom of speech and expression, I would go one step further and say that in view of the immense impact of media on the society at large, they are bound by additional and higher standards of accuracy than an ordinary citizen
In further directing the investigative agencies, in particular the ED, to refrain from divulging the details of a suspect/accused/witness prior to filing of a charge sheet, the Court held that similar to Court’s speaking through the judgements, the investigative agencies were expected to speak through their charge sheets. It opined:
Investigating agencies must not flaunt their results during investigation but must maintain a low-key profile to justify the immense powers vested in them. The said agencies are not a part of the media nor courts of law. Their function is only to investigate. It is not for the investigating agencies to wear their success stories on their sleeves.
Brief facts of the Case
The petitioner had approached court challenging media coverage of her husband’s trial, as creating prejudice and treating him as guilty sans an outcome.
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta argued that the petitioner and her family enjoyed a fundamental right to privacy and that ‘sensational media trial’ against her husband, had led to public perception deeming him guilty, even without a Court verdict.
Datta argued that such sensational coverage would tantamount to criminal contempt of court, as it was interdicting the justice delivery process, and commenting on an ongoing investigation into the petitioner’s husband, thereby taking away his right to a free trial.
It was argued that the petitioner’s fundamental right of privacy, guaranteed under Article 21 was being hampered by the ‘sensational’ reportage of the media houses.
Senior Counsel argued that a lot of the media items being carried were inaccurate, “half-baked” and presumptive, but causing irreparable and irreversible harm to the petitioner and her family.
It was argued that the investigative agencies were encouraging the same by holding press conferences, and taking television and news crews to accompany them during investigation of crime, creating an impression of guilt regarding the accused in the minds of the public.
DSG for the Union, argued that the petitioner had alternative redressal mechanisms and that the petitioner being an OCI card holder, and foreign national did not have the locus standi to seek curtailment of Article 19 rights of citizens.
DSG further objected to the maintainability of the present plea on the grounds that the same could only be moved before the Bench having determination of ‘police inaction since the investigative agencies fell into the same category.
DSG for the ED submitted that the Agency had not leaked any information pertaining to the investigation to the media, and that the formal press statements released by the agency, recognising work done by it, were available on their website as well.
Counsel for the respondent media-houses submitted that the freedom of speech could not be gagged by a court order. It was argued that no material had been produced to show derogatory news items carried by any of the media houses against the petitioner.
Findings of the Court
In dealing with the objections on maintainability, the Court held that if any matter pertaining to central agencies or the union government was classified under police inaction then the Bench taking up such matters would be the only Bench taking up all writ petitions against the Union of India or its instrumentalities and agencies, which would be an absurd proposition and an antithesis of the distribution of business.
It was held that the present matter did not pertain directly to the investigation, but to the ED’s role in allegedly leaking information to the press, which could not tantamount to ‘police inaction’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Regarding the petitioner’s status as an OCI card holder, the Court observed that the petitioner was asserting her Right to privacy under Article 21, and that the same was not only applicable to citizens, but to everyone.
Court observed that Article 14 and 21 were not just fundamental rights, but in the nature of basic human rights, which could not be restricted by the judiciary or the legislature.
In examining how far the right to privacy could override the right to free speech and expression, the Court observed that the right to free speech would be mirrored by the right of the citizens of India to get accurate and relevant information, without which there cannot be an assurance of a dignified life and personal liberty.
It was observed that mainstream journalism, converting itself to ‘yellow journalism’ disseminating ‘gossip items’ would directly hamper objective news.
The media has to be cautious to maintain bounds since its huge impact may make or break individual reputations as well. Every person, in Indian criminal jurisprudence, is innocent unless proved guilty, it was held.
It was further held that while media may carry “juicy pieces” the name of the author expressing such opinions must be clearly disclosed such that they cannot avoid responsibility for their own opinions. It held:
It is expected that a responsible media would do its homework and ascertain the facts before publishing them and it is not for courts of law to advise them in their own field.
Finally, in qualifying the practise of ‘investigative journalism’ by media houses, and setting down a set of guidelines to be followed by media houses and investigative agencies regarding publication of information pertaining to recruitment scam accused/witnesses/suspects, the Court concluded:
Investigative journalism cannot be a substitute for investigation by a specialized agency authorized in law or trial conducted by a court of law…many an innocent will be crushed in public censure and unwarranted public focus in the process. There are various aspects of the justice delivery system which may not be understood properly by laymen
Conjuring up conjecture should be left to the public mind, which cannot be restrained, nor does the court have any intention to. But insofar as the media and the investigating agencies are concerned, they should be extremely careful not only to provide correct and accurate information to the public, but also protect the dignity of individuals, irrespective of their affiliations.
Case No: WPA/22990/2023
Case: Rujira Banerjee v Union Of India & Ors