Media has no unfettered right to report criminal proceedings
The conflict between the right of media to report criminal proceedings by pronouncing innocence or guilt of the parties, and its impact on the individual’s right to dignity, reputation and privacy, under the constitution was examined by a Five Judge Bench of the High Court of Kerala (HCK), in Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald & Others [2024:KER:82715].
Media have right to publish accurate news or views
The HCK held that the print and electronic media have every right to publish news and views. That right will not extend to publication of news concerning investigation of criminal cases by the police and criminal cases pending trial in courts. The reason is that airing of such views has the propensity to substantially interfere with the administration of justice.
The trial by media may adversely affect the rights of an accused for a fair trial has immense power to influence public opinion. Sometimes judge will be subjected to media trial based on what the media publish.
The Citizens have a right to know what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings. Arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed.
Conflicting rights must be balanced
The right to freedom and expression has to be determined based on the interplay it has with the citizens’ rights, such as right to individual dignity or reputation, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such conflicts should be resolved by balancing of rights.
When confronted with a conflict between two fundamental rights, the court recognises the need to safeguard both the fundamental rights to the extent possible, and therefore attempts to forge a ‘measure’ that when applied to the situation would bring about a reconciliation of the conflicting rights.
Media cannot pronounce guilt of parties in pending cases
In pending criminal cases, the media has the right to report accurate facts and views regarding the ongoing case, but cannot pronounce the guilt or innocence of a party. When considering the separation of powers under the constitution, in which the judiciary alone has the mandate to adjudicate on the guilt or innocence of any person.
When media infringes individual right, victim can approach court
In reporting facts and views in a pending case, if the media infringes the right to dignity or reputation of any individual, she can approach the Constitutional Court to redress his or her grievances.
The statutes governing media’s right to speech
The statute that regulates media reporting are The Press Council Act, 1978, The Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, and the Rules framed under them.
The Guideline issued by the Press Council of India, and the News Broadcaster’s & Digital Association are also there. But none of them are sufficient to keep the media within their bounds.
The freedom of the press is a right traceable to Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and no law can be enacted in violation of it, but reasonable restrictions can be imposed under article 19 (2) the Constitution.
Right to privacy is cardinal & media cannot override it
The right to privacy has been declared a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. But when there is a conflict between fundamental rights, then there is a need to reconcile them by keeping a balance between both the rights.
In no way, the right to freedom of speech by media can override the individual’s right to dignity, reputation, and privacy.
Legitimate speech alone come under the right to speech
The hate speech, defamatory speech etc. would lie outside the protective perimeter within which a person can exercise his right to freedom of speech. Such speech can be subjected to restrictions or restraints.
Court cannot restrict right to publication but legislature can
In the above judgement, the High Court held that the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution cannot be restricted by a court order, but can be done by an enacted law by a competent legislature on any of the grounds specified in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
