Right to media v individual right to dignity
If there arises a conflict between the right of a media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and the right of an individual to his/ her dignity/ reputation that is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution, the former has to be seen as controlled by the latter, says Kerala High Court in Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases [2024:KER:82715].
In addition, it is also controlled by the ideals, values, concepts, and fundamental duties recognised under the Constitution which are equally binding on the media.
The right under Article 19(1)(a) thus gets correspondingly delimited and in appropriate cases must yield to the right of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Media freedom is delimited in criminal cases
In the context of reporting facts relating to criminal investigation or cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums, the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would be further delimited by their obligation to defer to the principles of separation of powers that is recognised under our Constitution.
Media freedom is fundamental in democracy
The High Court added that freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to a democratic country and media cannot be restrained using such prohibitions from publication or dissemination of information.
Media not to declare guilt or innocence of the accused
In this judgement in three writ petitions filed seeking to impose restraints on the power of media to report facts about pending cases and ongoing criminal investigations that are pending before adjudicatory forums, the high court held that media do not have an unfettered right to declare the innocence or guilt of parties under the guise of freedom of speech and expression while a criminal case is pending before an adjudicating authority.
Reference
- Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases [2024:KER:82715]
