Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking an administrative order to restrain the intermediaries and media houses (respondents) from holding media trial against former Principal of R G Kar Medical College (plaintiff 1), a Single Judge Bench of Shampa Sarkar, J. dismissed the writ petition holding that indiscriminate direction or restriction on the media or intermediaries with respect to the pleadings before the court was inappropriate. Therefore, the court refused to restrain media houses and intermediaries from publishing news against former Principal of R G Kar Medical College.
background
Former Principal of RG Kar Medical College and his wife (plaintiff 2) alleged that the media houses were publishing untrue, unreal and malicious stories regarding the involvement of former Principal in the rape and murder of a doctor which took place on 09.08.20204 near RG Kar Hospital.
The plaintiffs alleged that the news publications and social media posts had triggered public outrage, resulting in a mob storming their premises and had an adverse impact on their reputation and social standing. They also alleged that these publications and posts had hampered the ongoing investigations of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and caused mental anguish, disturbance and distress to their family members.
The complainants alleged that their right to privacy had been compromised by the damage to the reputation of the former headteacher and that the media reports had been published without verifying the accuracy or authenticity of the information.
It was also alleged that the extensive reporting of the incident and the news surrounding the former headmaster would prejudice the relevant courts and inflame the anger of the common people.
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs could approach the competent authority under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 or under the Press Council Act, 1978 to raise their grievance and seek removal of any prejudicial content.
Respondents also said that complete silence of the print or electronic media would violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Analysis and decision
The court found that it had not been explained in detail to what extent one of the defendants or other media companies and intermediaries had brought about a media trial. The only accusation made was that the extensive reporting had damaged the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The court observed that the former headmaster was not an accused and that the CBI had summoned him for questioning. Therefore, the allegation that the trial was influenced by the media and the courts through such reporting was premature. The court also said that no concrete instances were cited in the pleadings to suggest that the media houses or intermediaries had spread any news amounting to a media trial.
The Court also found that such blanket allegations that the reporting would harm the former offender and cause irreparable damage to his reputation did not justify a restriction of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and opinion to all persons, including the right to broadcast.
The court observed that the media has an important duty to inform the people and ensure that the members of the society are involved in matters of national importance. It was also said that the incident of rape and murder of the doctor had acquired a status of global importance and therefore the right to information was of fundamental importance in this case as every individual in the society was severely affected by the incident either directly or indirectly.
Therefore, the Court stated that no restriction was necessary on the media or intermediaries, other than the expectation that they would discharge their duty responsibly.
The court instructed the defendants that the news of the interrogation process must be broadcast without prejudgment or comment on the role of the former school principal and that the news must be objective and not reflect the subjective opinion of the media.
The court ordered media houses and intermediaries to refrain from publishing animated dramatizations of the interrogations. In the case of debates and discussions, the opinions or interviews of the panelists and guests should be broadcast with a note that these are their personal views and opinions and not the opinion of the media.
As regards the applicants’ personal freedom, the Court found that the police authorities had already afforded them protection.
The court also stated that if the plaintiffs had specific allegations against any of the media houses, they could seek redress under the Press Council Act, 1978 and in case of the alleged acts of the intermediaries, they were free to approach the authority under the Code of Ethics, 2021.
The court observed that if the plaintiffs feel aggrieved by the opinion of a person broadcast by any of the media houses, they have the right to file a defamation suit. While dismissing the suit, the court held that indiscriminate ordering or restricting the media or intermediaries was inappropriate.
(Dr. Sandip Ghosh v. Union of India, WPA 21006 of 2024, decided on 21.08.2024)
Lawyers appearing in this case:
For applicants — Advocate Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Advocate Md. Zohaib Rauf, Advocate Sumitava Chakraborty
For respondents — Advocate Rajdeep Mazumdar, Advocate Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate Anirban Ray, Advocate Md. TM Siddiqui, Advocate Debangshu Dinda, Advocate Varun Kothari, Advocate Nikunj Belia, Advocate Mosarat Reyaz, Advocate Ratnanko Banerji, Advocate Arunabha Deb, Advocate Soumabho, Advocate Ashika Daga
Buy the Constitution of India HERE
