'Involves Facets Of Freedom Of Press & Right To Know': Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Block The Print's Article On RAW

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking direction on the Union Government to block an article published by digital news platform 'The Print' on Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), observing that the publication involves facets of freedom of press as well as right to know.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected a plea moved by lawyer Raghav Awasthi seeking framing of guidelines that no media outlet is permitted to publish any source-based speculation as to whether any government officer or diplomat posted abroad is working for Indian Intelligence Agency.

The impugned article was published by The Print on November 30 last year. It was titled “Nijjar-Pannun effect: RAW downs shutters in North America 1st time since inception in 1968.”

It was Awasthi's case that the article compromises the career of the officers mentioned in it and that since they have been branded as Intelligence Officers, they would not be able to work at any other Indian mission elsewhere.

Dismissing the plea, the bench said that the contentions and submissions advanced by Awasthi were mere surmises and conjectures, based on hearsay.

“In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the impugned article does not compromise the careers of the Officers or puts the life of their family members in any physical harm. In any event, the Government of India has full authority under applicable law to take action against any periodical or to take-down any article which, in its opinion compromises national safety and security,” the court said.

It added that the Union Government requires no advice aid or assistance from Awasthi and that issues of intelligence or relations between the Government of India and foreign States need to be handled with extreme care and caution.

“The Courts should not easily transgress into this space. Accordingly, the present writ petition and application are dismissed,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Petitioner in Person

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Ld. ASG with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Akhil Hasija and Ms. Gauri, Advocates for R-1, R-4, R-6 and R-7; Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa and Ms. Diya Viswanath, Advocates for R-8