Kerala high court on Thursday held that freedom of speech and expression available to the press and media could not trample on the right to dignity, reputation and privacy available to the citizen, especially when reporting about criminal investigations or cases pending before various courts.
The ruling was issued by a five-judge bench, which further held that, in the garb of free speech and expression, the media could not be permitted to take upon themselves the role of investigating agencies, prosecutors, and adjudicators in pronouncing persons guilty or innocent, even before lawful investigation was completed.
The bench of justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath, Mohammed Nias C P, C S Sudha and Syam Kumar V M was of the unanimous view that 'media freedom is not a licence to interfere with the justice delivery system'.
'Restrictions on media reporting during criminal trials are permissible to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused,' the bench said in its 69-page order.
The court was dealing with a question on the scope, content and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the press/media in the context of reporting facts relating to criminal investigations and cases pending adjudication before various adjudicatory forums.
In answer to the question before it, the high court declared that while the media's freedom of speech and expression could not be restricted except by a law made by the legislature, it had to defer to the right to privacy of an individual and the principle of separation of powers -- especially when reporting on criminal cases and probes.
It ruled that when reporting on criminal investigations or cases pending in courts, the principle of separation of powers and the concept of rule of law mandated that the final and authoritative determination of guilt or innocence could be pronounced only by a judicial authority.
The five-judge bench said that 'though the media has a legal as well as constitutional right to report true and correct events relating to pending criminal trials and ongoing investigations, any false, derogatory, distorted or unprofessional reporting by them, which may either jeopardise the fair trial or impinge the reputation, dignity or privacy of the accused or the victim, would not be protected' under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution.
The court said any such unprofessional reporting on the part of the media 'would be actionable before the competent court of law'.
'It is desirable that the media realise its responsibility to society and draw the 'Lakshman Rekha' themselves without overstepping into the domain of the judiciary and the investigating agency and ensure that no media trial is undertaken, which causes prejudice to the fair trial and has an adverse impact on the privacy and dignity of the accused and the victim,' the bench said.
Media trials 'exceed the limits of ethical caution and fair comment' and project the suspect or accused as guilty or innocent even before the court delivers a verdict, it further said.
This, it said, amounted to 'a gross violation of the right of the accused, victim, and witnesses to a fair trial' guaranteed under the Constitution.
'It results in undue interference with the administration of justice. Such interference by the electronic media during a lawful investigation of any alleged crime defies all canons of legal legitimacy,' it added.
Therefore, the expression by the media of any definitive opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of a party in a criminal investigation or a case pending adjudication, before an authoritative pronouncement is made by the adjudicatory forum concerned, would not get protection under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution, the high court said.
It said that the declaration of law was 'deemed necessary' to guide the media in its exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in situations where they deemed it necessary to report facts relating to criminal investigations and cases pending trial.
'Deference to the said declaration of law would go a long way in preventing unnecessary instances of breach of fundamental rights of individuals in society and hopefully would also usher in a new era of responsible journalism,' the bench said.
