Delhi HC Restrains Media From Publishing 'Unsubstantiated' Information Against NCP MP Praful Patel In Money Laundering Case [Read Order]

"As discussed above, investigation is pending in a case which is being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate and plaintiff has been summoned only once as a witness, therefore publishing of any information based on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated facts about the plaintiff cannot be said to be justified," Additional District Judge Twinkle Wadhwa said.

In October this year, Patel was summoned by the ED as a witness in connection to a money laundering case linked to the alleged illegal assets of drug dealer Iqbal Mirchi, a close aide of Dawood Ibrahim. While Iqbal died in 2013, Patel has come under the ED scanner in connection with an alleged deal between Iqbal's wife and a real estate company promoted by Patel.

Patel, represented by Advocates Vijay Aggrawal and Ayush Jindal, alleged that on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the Defendants were excessively publicizing the news giving an impression as if he is actually involved in terror funding, even while the investigation was still pending.

"This kind of practice is liable to be stopped, as it is not in public interest and only aims to obliterate the respected persons of the society," he said.

Noting that the reply filed by media houses was silent on the source of receipt of information qua the investigating agency, the court passed an order asking the concerned media houses to withdraw all such uncorroborated information within 24 hours.

"…publication that ED has claimed links between plaintiff and Dawood is an uncorroborated and unsubstantiated piece of information which does not appear to be based on true facts.

…As far as the defence of fair comment is concerned, any comment or publication on behalf of and in the name of investigating agency cannot be said fair comment if made without any substantial basis or proof as can be seen from the record."

Citing the 'reckless and irresponsible' actions of the Respondents, Patel had submitted,

"The Defendant No.1 to 7 have reported on the aspects not in public domain and therefore, Defendant No.1 to 7 cannot be permitted to sensationalize without regard for truth and in a manner, as if the false and defamatory reporting is a matter of fact."

He argued that the Constitution guaranteed that no man shall be condemned unheard and without due process of law. However, the media houses had been targeting him to increase their circulation and TRPs at the cost of his reputation.

"Publication of impugned media reports amounts to condemning plaintiff without process of law.

xxx

Press cannot 'convict anyone' or insinuate that he/she is guilty or make any other unsubstantiated claims. Press has to exercise care and caution while reporting about matters under investigation or pending trial," he submitted.

He asserted that the freedom of press under the Constitution was not higher than the freedom of a citizen and was in fact subject to the restrictions imposed under Article19(2) thereof. Reliance was placed on Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, 1981 AIR 1514, wherein the Apex Court said,

"We hasten to add that journalists are in no better position than any other person. Even the truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First Exception unless it is proved to be in the public good."

Thus, Patel sought Permanent and Mandatory injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against the Respondents and argued that media houses should not be allowed to make violate the canons of responsible journalism.

"Any publication which gives excessive adverse publicity to an individual or which is likely to hamper fair trial or investigations and constitutes an interference with the course of justice could be a ground for grant of injunction," he submitted.

In support of his prayer, he referred to ruling of the Delhi High Court in Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami & Ors., 2018 (167) DRJ 119, which made crucial observations with regards media trial.

"This Court is of the view that it is important that when criminal investigation has commenced, media reporting should be sensitive to the indeterminacy of the questions raised in the proceedings. Press cannot 'convict anyone' or insinuate that he/she is guilty or make any other unsubstantiated claims. Press has to exercise care and caution while reporting about matters under investigation or pending trial."

Remarking that media houses are considered the "fourth pillar of the society" and are expected to publish and provide information to the public that is based on truth and evidence, the court restrained the Defendants from publishing any 'unsubstantiated and uncorroborated' information against Patel.

However, the court clarified that the Media houses were free to report about any Court proceedings or any substantiated fact based information or about final report of the Investigating Agency as and when filed.

Read Order