Journalists Not Exempted From Disclosing Their Sources To Investigating Agencies: Delhi Court
A Delhi Court has observed that there is no statutory exemption to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, specially where such disclosure is necessary for aiding and assisting in investigation of a criminal case. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Anjani Mahajan of Rouse Avenue Courts observed so while rejecting a closure report file by Central Bureau of...
A Delhi Court has observed that there is no statutory exemption to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, specially where such disclosure is necessary for aiding and assisting in investigation of a criminal case.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Anjani Mahajan of Rouse Avenue Courts observed so while rejecting a closure report file by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case pertaining to a report published in newspapers and aired on TV channels regarding allegations of disproportionate assets against former UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members.
The Supreme Court in March 2007 had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets or wealth acquired by Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members.
As the proceedings were pending for final adjudication on February 9, 2009, a day before the scheduled date of hearing, the Times of India published a news article titled “CBI may admit Mulayam was framed-DIG’s internal note says agency had not verified in PIL”. The news was also aired in channels namely Star News and CNN-IBN.
A complaint was filed by the probe agency against unknown persons for “preparing fake and fabricated report to tarnish the reputation of CBI.” It alleged that such persons entered into criminal conspiracy and with the intent to commit forgery, used as genuine, a forged document, which was ran as a false and fabricated news.
The closure report filed by CBI stated that it could not be established as to who forged the documents in question as the journalists did not disclose their source. It was thus stated that there was no sufficient material or evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy.
A protest petition was also filed by Vishwanath Chaturvedi, who was the petitioner before Supreme Court, contending that if the final report of CBI is accepted, “the real culprits will go scot free even though they have committed serious offences.” However, the protest application was dismissed by the court, observing that Chaturvedi is a rank outsider and has no locus to file it.
Observing that a bare perusal of untraced report shows that the CBI has not chosen to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, the court said:
“Merely because the concerned journalists denied to reveal their respective sources, as stated in the final report, the investigating agency should not have put a halt to the entire investigation. There is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, moreso where such disclosure is necessary for the purpose of aiding and assisting in investigation of a criminal case.”
The court added that the investigating agency can always bring to the notice of concerned journalists the requirement of disclosure of the source being essential and vital to the investigation proceedings.
It further observed that an investigating agency is fully equipped under the IPC and Cr.P.C. to require the public persons to mandatorily join in an investigation where it is of the opinion that such public persons are privy to any facts or circumstances relating to the case under investigation.
“The CBI is well within its power to direct the concerned journalists/news agencies by way of notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. etc. to provide the required information and bring to their notice the requisite facts of the case warranting disclosure of the information as per law,” the court said.
The judge noted that although the closure report stated that the journalists Deepak Chaurasia, Bhupinder Chaubey and Manoj Mitta had been examined, however, only the copy of statement under section 161 of CrPC of Chaubey was on record.
The court also observed that only Chaubey was mentioned as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by CBI along with closure report.
“There are no statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Deepak Chaurasia and Sh. Manoj Mitta on the record nor are they cited as witnesses in either of the lists of the witnesses filed by the CBI,” the court noted.
The court said further enquiry is required to be conducted from the journalists on the aspect of their sources from whom the alleged forged documents was received which became the basis of their news items.
“Further, based on such information, additional clues regarding the identities of the culprits who entered into the alleged criminal conspiracy, prepared and fraudulently and knowingly used as genuine the forged document by providing it to the media/ getting it published/aired, could be found and probed. Further investigation on this aspect is thus required to be conducted,” it said.
While rejecting the closure report, the court directed CBI to carry out further investigation in the matter and clarified that the IO and CBI shall be at liberty to carry out further investigation or any other aspects as deemed fit.
“….however, the aspects highlighted in this order should be covered in the further investigation to be conducted and supplementary report to be filed,” the court added.