Delhi Court Upholds Release Of Electronics Devices Seized From Editors Of ‘The Wire’, Says Delhi Police Causing Undue Hardship To Them

A Delhi Court has dismissed a plea moved by the Delhi Police against a magisterial court’s order which ordered the release of the electronic devices seized from editors of “The Wire” during searches conducted in October last year in relation to an FIR lodged against them by BJP leader Amit Malviya.

Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Singh Rajawat of Tis Hazari Courts upheld the order passed by the CMM on September 23 observing that it is purely interlocutory in nature.

“The Press is considered the Fourth Pillar of our great Democracy and if it is not allowed to function and operate independently, it would cause serious injury to the foundations of our Democracy,” the court said.

The judge added that by “continuous seizure of electronic devices”, the Delhi Police is not only causing undue hardship to the editors but the act also impinges upon their fundamental right of freedom of profession as well as freedom of speech and expression.

The CMM had said that there was no reasonable ground for not releasing the devices to the portal’s founding editors Siddharth Varadarajan, MK Venu, Sidharth Bhatia, deputy editor Jahnavi Sen and product-cum-business head Mithun Kidambi.

Dismissing Delhi Police’s revision petition, the court said that the editors are working for the portal which is engaged in disseminating news and information and the electronic devices were being used for their work.

“It is also to be noted that the investigating agency by continuous seizure of electronic devices of the respondents, is not only causing undue hardship to them, but impinges upon their fundamental right of Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) as well as Freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as admittedly the respondents are working for news portal The Wire which is engaged in disseminating news and information and the electronic devices were being used for their work,” the court said.

Furthermore, the judge also said that the impugned order not only safeguarded the interest of the editors but also ensure that they are duty bound to keep the devices safe from tempering.

“The impugned order does not terminate the proceedings but the investigation and trial if any will go on until it terminates in either submission of closure report and if chargesheet is filed in either acquittal or conviction. The impugned order does not decide any right but only the interim custody of the devices till conclusion of investigation or disposal of the case,” the court said.

As per a press release issued by The Wire last year, Delhi Police’s Crime Branch had deployed a “large contingent of its personnel” across the national capital and Mumbai to the homes of its editors pursuant to a notice issued to them under Section 91 of CrPC.

The portal claimed that despite the cooperation of its editors during the searches, its office at Bhagat Singh Market in Delhi was also searched and one of its lawyers was “physically pushed out by the officers at that site.”

The Delhi Police opposed the application of the editors for release of devices on the ground that their mirror images may not be sufficient for retrieval of data from the said devices if some new facts come to light during further investigation.

Passing different yet similar orders in the applications, the court said that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the editors to ensure that the devices are available to the IO for investigation, if required at a later stage.

Therefore, the court directed the editors to furnish an affidavit before the IO to keep the devices in their own custody. The matter is now fixed for filing of compliance report by the IO on October 21.

Amit Malviya had lodged a complaint against The Wire and its editors for “tarnishing his reputation” with their now retracted report claiming that he used his special privileges at Meta to take down over 700 social media posts.

The FIR was registered under Section 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery with the purpose of cheating), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 471 (using forged document), 500 (defamation), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Click Here To Read Order