Police Media Briefings in Criminal Investigations: Supreme Court Directs Comprehensive Guidelines (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 833
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J; Manoj Misra, J.

How can the police ensure transparency in criminal investigations without compromising the rights of the accused or victims? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addresses the critical need for guidelines governing police media briefings during ongoing criminal investigations. This order seeks to balance the public’s right to information with the rights of the accused to a fair trial and the privacy of victims. The court has directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to formulate a comprehensive manual on this issue.

Case Background

This case originated from a batch of petitions raising concerns about the procedure followed by the police in investigating police encounters and the propriety of media briefings by police personnel. The court had previously addressed the issue of police encounters in a separate judgment. This order focuses on the second issue, concerning media briefings during criminal investigations. The court recognized the need to regulate the way police interact with the media, particularly in cases that attract public attention.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several legal provisions relevant to the issue of media briefings during criminal investigations. These include:

• Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the disclosure of the identity of victims of certain offenses.

• Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section pertains to the open court proceedings.

• Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (formerly Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000): This section prohibits the disclosure of the identity of juveniles involved in legal proceedings.

• Sections 8(1)(g) & (h) and 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005: These sections specify exemptions from disclosure of information under the Act.

• Explanation to Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971: This explanation defines when a judicial proceeding is considered pending, particularly in relation to contempt of court. It states, “For the purposes of this section, a judicial proceeding— (a) is said to be pending— (A)in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise, (B)in the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)1., or any other law— (i) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused, and (ii) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding relates, and in the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or revision is preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision has expired; (b) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed to be pending merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence passed therein are pending.”

The court noted that these provisions, along with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, must be balanced to ensure fair and transparent practices in media briefings by the police.

Arguments

The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, presented several arguments and suggestions to the Court, emphasizing the need for guidelines that balance the rights of the accused, victims, and the public’s right to information. The key arguments are summarized below:

• Who can brief the media? The Amicus Curiae suggested that each district or town should have a designated Media Briefing Cell (MBC) for interactions with the media.

• At what stage is the briefing done? Briefings can be done at any stage after an FIR is registered, an arrest is made, or a raid is conducted, but the information shared should be limited at the early stages.

• How much information is to be shared at each stage? The Amicus Curiae emphasized that the primary concern should be the fair administration of justice without compromising individual rights of privacy or presumption of innocence.

• What information cannot be shared? Information that portrays the police as insensitive or vindictive, suggests pre-judging an issue, or compromises the victim should not be released. The identity of victims of sexual offenses and juvenile cases should never be divulged.

• Is the information to be shared or conveyed verbally or in writing? Press releases must be in writing and with the authorization of a senior police officer.

• What safeguards to be followed? The Amicus Curiae suggested safeguards such as not disclosing names of victims, photos of accused who have to stand Test Identification Parade, opinions/judgments, line of investigation, or information in National Security issues.

• Whether copies of Press Releases are maintained by the police department? Press Briefs should be maintained as permanent records of the media interactions of the police.

• Disciplinary action against officers who do not abide by instructions. Any breach of the guidelines must be strictly dealt with departmentally.

The Amicus Curiae also highlighted the need to maintain a balance between the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right of the media/public under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following two main issues:

1. The procedure to be followed by the police in investigating police encounters.

2. The propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel.

The first issue was previously addressed by the court. This order focuses on the second issue regarding media briefings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities and legal provisions to address the issue of media briefings:

Judgment

The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel. The Court emphasized the need to balance various issues of public interest while framing the guidelines. The Court considered the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae, the practices followed by police departments in other jurisdictions, and the guidelines of the Central Bureau of Investigation and Union Ministry of Home Affairs in India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily aimed at balancing the competing interests of public information, the rights of the accused, and the privacy of victims. The court emphasized the need for a structured approach to police media briefings to prevent biased reporting and ensure fair trials.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. This is reflected in the higher percentage allocated to “Law” in the sentiment analysis.

The Court’s reasoning is structured as follows:

The court considered the potential for media briefings to impinge upon the presumption of innocence, stating, “Media reportage in a manner which implicates the culpability of the person who is under investigation is liable to seriously impinge upon the reputation and personal dignity of the individual under investigation.” The court also recognized the importance of protecting the privacy of victims, especially in cases involving sexual offenses and juveniles.

The court emphasized that the disclosure of information by the police should not be subjective or pre-judge the guilt of the accused. It stated, “The nature of the disclosure which is made by the police in the course of media briefings should be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion pre-judging the guilt of the accused.” The court also highlighted the potential for media trials to derail the course of justice, noting, “Media trials are liable to result in a derailment of justice by impacting upon the evidence which would be adduced and its assessment by the adjudicating authorities.”

Key Takeaways

• The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel.

• All Directors General of Police must provide their suggestions to the Ministry within one month.

• The Ministry must consult with various stakeholders, including media organizations and the National Human Rights Commission.

• The guidelines must balance the public’s right to information with the rights of the accused and the privacy of victims.

• The guidelines should ensure that media briefings are objective and do not pre-judge the guilt of the accused.

• The guidelines should prevent media trials that could derail the course of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Union Ministry of Home Affairs should prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel.

• All Directors General of Police must communicate their suggestions to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs within one month.

• The Union Ministry of Home Affairs must prepare the guidelines after considering the views received from the Directors General of Police and after consulting other stakeholders including representative segments of the print and electronic media.

• The National Human Rights Commission’s viewpoint must also be taken into consideration.

• The exercise must be completed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs by 31 December 2023.

• The Union Ministry of Home Affairs shall furnish a copy of the guidelines to the Amicus Curiae and to the counsel for the National Human Rights Commission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is a need for a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel to balance the public’s right to information with the rights of the accused and the privacy of victims. This order seeks to provide a structured approach to police media briefings, ensuring that they are objective, unbiased, and do not lead to media trials. This is a development in the law as it mandates a uniform policy on media briefings, which was previously lacking.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. marks a significant step towards regulating police media briefings during criminal investigations. By directing the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to formulate a comprehensive manual, the court aims to ensure that the media’s right to report on criminal matters is balanced with the rights of the accused to a fair trial and the privacy of victims. The guidelines will be crucial in preventing biased reporting and ensuring that the administration of justice is not compromised.