Free speech cannot override right to life, privacy; media cannot misuse its privileges: Calcutta High Court

Right to free speech cannot curb or override the right to privacy envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Calcutta High Court said on Tuesday while issuing brief guidelines for the media houses to report on criminal cases [Rujira Banerjee vs State of West Bengal]..Single-judge Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya refused to accepted the contention of the Central government that the petitioner Rujira Banerjee, wife of Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, being a foreigner (Thai citizen) cannot seek to curtail the rights of Indian citizens."Such a blanket norm, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that freedom of speech and expression overrides the right to life. Dead men do not speak. Thus, the freedom of speech and expression cannot under normal circumstances curb the right to live of another," the judge held.The Court said that by social and judicial evolution, several additional rights have been read into the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy."The mirroring component of the right to speech is the right of the citizens of India to get accurate and relevant information, without which there cannot be an assurance of a dignified life and personal liberty. An informed view of society is essential for an individual to protect her or his life and its ancillaries," the Court observed.The judgment was delivered on a plea filed by Rujira Banerjee, wife of Abhishek Banerjee, seeking to restrain certain media houses from reporting the ongoing investigation against the couple in the school jobs for cash scam case.She moved the Court alleging that a media trial is going on against her and Banerjee and such media organisations should be restrained from publishing any news with regards to her and her parliamentarian husbandIn the context of the instant petition, wherein Rujira highlighted the 'media trial' against her and her husband, the Court made it clear that the media has to be cautious to maintain bounds since its huge impact may make or break individual reputations as well.The Court, however, refused to pass any order restraining the media from publishing any material against the petitioner and other members of her family."The husband of the petitioner is a well-known political figure. Other members of her family are also prominent functionaries in the State Executive. The publications against them are in their individual capacities and/or as political propaganda. The media publications and propaganda against them is not in their capacity as members of the petitioner‟s family. Rather, it is the other way round, since part of the propaganda against the petitioner may be since she is a part of the family," the Court underlined.Thus, the protective umbrella sought by the petitioner cannot be extended to her family since the media publications against the said family members are in their own capacities, which can always be assailed by them in their independent capacity, the Court added..Media cannot take advantage of special privileges.In its 38-page judgment, the Court made it clear that the media, taking advantage of their special privileges of access to information, cannot resort to such sensationalism, thereby conducting media trial and castigating a person before s/he is held guilty by a competent court of law."Investigative journalism is definitely welcome to expose the wrong-doings and injustices in society and is an essential facet of a free press exercising the freedom of speech and expression. However, it cannot be a substitute for investigation by a specialized agency authorized in law or trial conducted by a court of law," the Court made it clear.Further, the judge pointed out that in today's fast-paced, competitive modern day world there is little scope of introspection and there is no opportunity to stop by woods in evenings, snowy or otherwise.Since nature abhors a vacuum, such void in our lives is sought to be filled by resorting to titillating gossip, revelations and sensationalism be it from the media gossip columns or otherwise."However, if mainstream journalism converts itself to yellow journalism, the dissemination of objective news is directly hampered. News presented as news, has to be objective, shorn of opinionated barbs and jibes. The media has two-fold responsibility – to disseminate accurate information to the public at large and to stay afloat by weighing commercial viability. The latter cannot be entirely shunned, since commerce provides the funds for sustaining independent journalism," the Court added..ED and other investigating agencies should not flaunt their probe resultsThe Court also had a word of caution for investigating agencies including the Enforcement Directorate (ED)..Just as courts are supposed to speak through their judgments and not go about expressing their opinions in public matters which are sub judice or which may potentially be the subject matter of adjudication, investigating agencies speak through their charge sheets, the Court said."The said agencies are not a part of the media nor courts of law. Their function is only to investigate. It is not for the investigating agencies to wear their success stories on their sleeves," the bench emphasised. Keeping in mind the huge responsibilities of the central investigating agencies which are an indispensable and very important arm of the justice delivery system, they should be extremely careful in what information they disseminate, since such information may ruin a suspect or even accused who after investigation may not even be named in the charge sheet or be ultimately acquitted after trial, the bench said."The job of the ED is not primarily to focus on the positive work done by the organization and to build confidence with the public, although confidence-building with the public may be necessary to the extent required to ensure smooth investigation. However, the investigating agencies must not flaunt their results during investigation," the Court said adding that they must maintain a low-key profile to justify the immense powers vested in them. .Senior Advocate Kishore Datta along with advocates Jishnu Chowdhury, Soumen Mohanty, Ayan Poddar, Piyush Kumar Ray, Agnish Basu and Riddhi Jain appeared for the Petitioner.Deputy Solicitor General Billwadal Bhattacharyya along with advocate Debjani Ghosal represented the Union of India.Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi and advocate Debjani Ray represented the ED.Advocates Sandipan Ganguly, Apalak Basu, Manaswita Mukherjee, Smita Mukherjee, Abhirup Chakraborty, Tuhin Ganguly, Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Sayan Banerjee, Pintu Karar, Badrul Karim, Kiron Sk, Chiranjib Sinha, Dyutiman Banerjee and Suchitra Chatterjee represented various media houses..Read more about the judgment here..[Read Judgment]