Press Note Against Devangana Kalita Was A Proportional Response to the Allegations of Communalisation of Police: Delhi Police Informs Delhi HC

The Single Bench was further informed that the said press note was intended to restore the public faith in the police and was a proportional response to the allegations of communalisation of police.

These submissions were made in a writ petition moved by Devangana Kalita seeking a direction to be issued to the Delhi Police refraining it from leaking information regarding FIRs registered against her to the media.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi submitted that the Press Note of the DCP, which the Petitioner has cited as derogatory and prejudicial to her right to fair trial, was a response to the allegations made by the Pinjra Tod members on their Twitter account.

Mr Lekhi submitted that the Pinjra Tod members had accused the Delhi Police of 'massive Hindutva conspiracy' and 'political witch hunt to stifle dissent', which undermined the public faith in police and subsequently threatened social order.

Mr Lekhi further submitted that since Kalita made no efforts to disassociate herself from the tweets made by Pinjra Tod, the prevailing context warranted a response from the police.

'The intention of the press note was not to conduct a media trial or to malign the reputation of the accused or to prejudice her case. The intention was to address the issue of damage caused to the public faith in police due to the allegations made by the Petitioner's association.'

Mr Lekhi further went on to argue that the press note did not reveal any information which was not already part of the public knowledge. He said:

'The nature of the case against Kalita was revealed by the members of the Pinjra Tod themselves by giving all the details about the offences invoked against her.'

At this point, the court interjected Mr Lekhi and highlighted that:

'Presumption of innocence is not destroyed when the accused person runs a campaign saying that he's innocent. Rather, it is destroyed when the prejudicial statements are released in the media by the police.'

Mr Lekhi responded to that observation by submitting the presumption of institutional integrity is equally important as presumption of innocence and the balance between both the presumptions of disturbed by the tweets made by the Pinjra Tod members. Therefore, this balance had to be restored by the police.

While relying upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the Romila Thapar case and Sahara v. SEBI, Mr Lekhi argued that the press note did not violate any of the tests laid down by the apex court on what makes a statement qualify as prejudicial to the case of the accused.

Mr Lekhi pointed out that the press note was sent through WhatsApp to 480 persons from across the media and news agencies. Therefore, it rules out the allegation of 'selective leaking of the information'. He said:

'The press note was not a celebratory leak for touting the achievements of the police or taking credits for the imaginary investigation. It was a proportional response, restricted itself to the allegations made in the charge sheet and was circulated to media houses from across the spectrum.'

While asking Mr Lekhi to explain as what parts of the Pinjra Tod tweets did he find offensive, the court observed that:

'Social media is an unruly horse. There are absurd comments made which have no connection to reality.'

The court added:

'You (police) could've kept your ammunition dry till the chargesheet is filed. It becomes pivotal for the court to ensure that the matters which are yet to be heard do not become prejudicial.'

Mr Lekhi responded to this by arguing that the Pinjra Tod members can't go on to communalise the police's actions and then expect the police to stay quiet. These are the consequences that were invited by their conduct.

The court reiterated that the accused's statement claiming innocence or challenging her arrest can't be a ground to release information to the media. The court said:

'This is how protests work. Agencies are given an opportunity to defend their actions in the court.'

At this stage, the court adjourned the matter till tomorrow for further hearing.