The Bombay High Court on Thursday passed an order stating that it urges and expects the media to show restraint while reporting the developments in the case relating to the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The bench also said that the media should not report in a manner which hampers the ongoing investigation in the matter.
“We urge and expect the media to exercise restraint in reporting of the investigation with respect to the death, which should not hamper investigation in any manner”, the bench said.
A bench of Justices A A Sayed and S P Tavade passed the order in two PILs which sought directions for fair reporting by the media of the Sushant Singh Rajput case.
The bench also issued notice to the respondents in the two PILs and said that it will consider the further reliefs sought by the petitioners after hearing the CBI, which is handling the investigation in the case.
One PIL was filed by 8 former IPS officers who had served Maharashtra police contending that the media was carrying out a “malicious campaign against the Mumbai police”.
Second was a PIL filed through Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and Shashwat Anand seeking a direction to the Centre to enforce its program code against the TV channels to stop the “media trial” in the case. Nilesh Navlakha (filmmaker/producer), Mahibub D. Shaikh (editor of a regional newspaper) and retired civil servant Subhash Chander Chaba were the petitioners in this case.
Appearing for the ex-IPS officers – former DGPs PS Parsicha, K Subramanyam, D Sivanandan, Sanjeev Dayal and SC Mathur, along with former Commissioners MN Singh, DN Jadhav and KP Raghuvanshi – Senior Advocate Milind Sathe sought directions to the Union of India, Press Council of India, News Broadcaster’s Association and News Broadcasting Standards Authority to issue guidelines to restrain media from publishing any content that may jeopardize the reputation of Mumbai police.
A bench of Justices A. A. Sayed and S. P. Tavade considering the matter.
Senior Advocate Milind Sathe appearing for the 8 former IPS officers.#RheaChakraborty #SushantSinghRajput @MumbaiPolice @Tweet2Rhea
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 3, 2020
Petitioners (former IPS officers) are not concerned with the accused or the victim; petitioners are not concerned about who should investigate. The petitioners are concerned about the manner of reporting of the case which is against the journalistic ethics”, Sathe submitted.
“Reporting by media, especially electronic media, is a parallel media trial. Ther is also vilification of Mumbai Police without any basis”, he submitted.
Referring to the order passed by the Supreme Court on August 17 to hand over the investigation to the CBI, Sathe submitted that the top court had not found any fault with the procedure adopted by the Mumbai police, and that the CBI probe was ordered in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the states of Bihar and Maharasthra were making allegations against each other.
“There is no castigation or stigma cast on the Mumbai Police”, Sathe said referring to portions of the Supreme Court order of August 17. Despite that, he said, the media was “falsely tarnishing” the Mumbai police.
Sathe also referred to several snapshots of the media reports against Mumbai police. He also said that the channel ‘Times Now’ displayed the dead body of the actor in a show anchored by Navika Kumar.
Sathe shows to the bench various reports about Mumbai Police which he terms "completely defamatory and baseless".#SushantSinghRajput #RheaChakraborty
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 3, 2020
Sathe also submitted that the media was doing a parallel investigation in the case by calling the witnesses and asking them questions.
“This is an attempt to influence the investigation and to prejudice the case”, he said.
He highlighted that the Press Council of India has also expressed its disapproval of the manner of media reporting in the case. The reporting is in violation of the norms for “self-regulation” formulated by the News Broadcasters Association.
“The reporting is not fair, balanced, objective and neutral. They have taken over the trial and investigation. The media reporting has exposed material witnesses and crucial materials. This acts as a serious prejudice to investigation. Right to fair trial and fair investigation is part of Article 14 & 21”, he argued.
The senior counsel also made a reference to The Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act 1922 and stated that the reporting violates the provisions of this Act.
Appearing in the connected PIL, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat submitted that the media had violated the norms laid down by the Press Council of India, and also the Program Code under the Cable TV act while reporting the case.
Kamat submitted that one channel termed Sushant Singh’s suicide ‘hit wicket’. One channel showed the corpse of the actor. Another channel circulated fabricated tweets as Sushant’s last message and later deleted the news on being exposed, he added. Channels are also discussing the private chats between Sushant and Rhea.
“A trial by press is the very antithesis of rule of law and can lead to miscarriage of justice”, he submitted.
“What is guiding the media is not the quest for truth but a quest for TRPs and more and more commercial gains”, he said.
Kamat referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Arushi Talwar case to restrain media from publishing any matter which “interferes with investigation, sully the character of the victim and prejudice the defence of the accused”.
“When one of the witnesses came out of CBI office after interrogation, the media hounded him asking about the kind of questions asked. Is this the kind of reporting which the fourth estate should do?”, Kamat asked.
The Law Commission of India has also commented that such publications “directly impinge upon the administration of justice”, he said.
Law Commission of India has frowned upon publications on the character of the accused, comments reflecting on the merits of the case under investigation, photographs of crime scene, police investigation.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Central Government, had sought for adjournment of the hearing to tomorrow by saying that copies of the petitions had not been served on the Centre, and that none of the channels had appeared before the Court.
Originally published on Live Law.
