Press Exempted From Prosecution For 'Sting Operation' Done To Uncover Truth & Inform Public Without Maladies : Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court laid down that Freedom of the Press may not include Sting Operations in all cases, but Sting Operations conducted by recognized media persons have to be considered differently, given their crucial role as the Fourth Estate in a democracy. It stated that the Court should assess whether the Sting Operation was carried out with bonafide intention to uncover the truth...
The Kerala High Court laid down that Freedom of the Press may not include Sting Operations in all cases, but Sting Operations conducted by recognized media persons have to be considered differently, given their crucial role as the Fourth Estate in a democracy. It stated that the Court should assess whether the Sting Operation was carried out with bonafide intention to uncover the truth and inform the public and this must be determined on a case-to-case basis.
The Court considered whether petitioners being media persons were entitled to exemption from prosecution under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act 2010. They were attempting a Sting Operation in the prison to record the statement of Joppan, a former staff of the Former Chief Minister Oomen Chandy who was in jail in connection with the sensational solar case scam.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that the Press have to be bonafide and vigilant while conducting sting operations and their intention should be to promote democracy and not to harass or humiliate anyone.
“…'sting operation' by law enforcement agency and recognised media people is to be viewed in a different angle. But, there cannot be any uniform rule that all 'sting operation' conducted by the law enforcement agency and media is to be legalised. It is to be decided based on the facts in each case. If the sting operation is done by the press with any mala fide intention or to target a person individually and to humiliate him, there will not be any backing of law to the media person for such sting operation and the reporting based on such 'sting operation'. But if the 'sting operation' is to find out the truth and to convey the same to the citizen, without any malafide intention, the press is exempted from prosecution for such 'sting operation'. But the press should act with bonafides and their aim should be only to promote the democracy and their intention should be to find out the truth and not to harass or humiliate any person or any section of people or the government."
The petitioners, in this case, are two media persons from Reporter T V Channel who were accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 86 (punishment in certain cases) and 87 (power to arrest for offence under S. 86) of the 2010 Act for trying to conduct a sting operation in jail.
The allegation was that they entered District Jail, Pathanamthitta on July 2013 with permission to visit the undertrial prisoner Joppan. The petitioners allegedly recorded his statement with their phone violating the jail rules. They have approached the High Court to quash the final report against them.
The Court stated that prima facie ingredients were satisfied to attract an offence under Section 86. Section 86(2) stipulates conviction for prisoners, visitors, or prison officials found with electronic devices inside the prison contrary to the Act or rules or engaged in manipulating, damaging, or destroying any equipment, electronic or otherwise within the prison. The Section imposes punishment up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to ten thousand rupees.
The Court went on to state that press in known as fourth estate and is also known as fourth pillar of the democracy. The Court stated that press plays a vital role in a healthy democracy to ensure that power is not abused, citizens are well informed and actively take part in the democratic process.
“The fourth estate is holding those in power accountable by investigating and exposing corruption, abuse of power, and wrongdoing. They provide a platform for diverse perspectives giving way to various opinions, views and interests. The fourth estate informs the public by reporting accurate and unbiased information enabling them to make informed decisions. The fourth estate is acting as a watchdog overseeing government actions, policies and decisions. The fourth estate is also facilitating public debates and discussions and encouraging dialogue and scrutiny of important issues. The fourth estate is supporting transparency and accountability, shedding light on government activities, and promoting openness and good governance. The fourth estate is also empowering the citizens by providing information enabling them to participate actively in the democratic process.”
It stated that the Press occasionally engages in activities that may not be normally permitted by law, such as sting operations. The Court referred to Apex Court decisions in R.K. Anand and Another v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) Rajat Prasad v. CBI (2014) where it was laid down that sting operation by law enforcement agency and recognized media persons in larger public interest serves public cause.
The Court stated that the Press being the fourth pillar of democracy has a vital role in informing the public what is true and what is untrue. It stated that this would enable the citizenry to engage in the democratic process of electing their government. The Court cautioned that media must be careful since even tiny errors in reporting could infringe upon an individual's privacy or constitutional rights.
In the present case, the Court noted that petitioners out of over-enthusiasm used their mobile phones in prison to try to get information from a witness of a sensational case. The Court stated that petitioners were unable to record since they were refrained from using mobile phones by prison officers.
The Court opined that there was no requirement to continue prosecution against petitioners since their intent was only to get news information and not to violate law.
As such, the Court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate C P Udayabhanu
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
Case Title: Pradeep v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 2924 of 2015