<p>The Delhi High Court today turned down Zee News' request to place in sealed cover, the name of the journalist who procured the alleged confessional statement of a Delhi riots accused. (<em>Asif Iqbal Tanha vs State & ors)</em></p>.<p>"<em>I am not accepting anything in a sealed cover”</em>, the Court said as it directed Zee News to comply with its order seeking an affidavit disclosing the source of the statement. </p>.Disclose source of alleged confessional statement of Delhi riots accused: Delhi HC tells Zee News.<p>A Single Judge Bench of <strong>Justice Vibhu Bakhru</strong> was hearing a petition filed by accused, Asif Tanha.</p>.<p>The counsel for Zee News, Advocate<strong> Vijay Aggarwal</strong> today also argued that the journalist was protected against disclosing the "source" of his/her information.</p>.<p>As Aggarwal claimed that the present case involved the constitutional right of a journalist and a person "<em>who himself had no regard for the Constitution</em>", the Court remarked, </p>.<div><blockquote>"You have no material whatsoever to make that allegation.. Police itself is making a vigliance enquiry (into the leak)..What is your Constitutional right to take out the document?"</blockquote><span class="attribution"></span></div>.<p>Aggarwal submitted that procurement of documents, as in the present case, was a practice that was undertaken by journalists worldwide. </p>.<p>The Court, however, stated, </p>.<div><blockquote>As a journalist you misrepresented the document to a different level.. Even the accused has no right to see it (before the filing of chargesheet)..</blockquote><span class="attribution"></span></div>.<p>Stating that prima facie, there could not be any argument, the Court clarified that Article 19(1)(a) did not give one an absolute right qua documents that were yet to become part of public record. </p>.<p><em>"You Editor didn't know (that it was not part of public record)?.. Put on affidavit whatever you think your right is</em>.", the Court said. </p>.<p>Further acknowledging that the alleged disclosure statement could not have been shared by the accused at the relevant time, the Court "hoped" that the Delhi Police would "put their house in order". </p>.<p>"<em>It also effects the investigation</em>", the Court said. </p>.<p>Before parting, the Court also asked the counsel for Tanha, Advocate <strong>Siddharth Agarwal </strong>to consider what could be the next step in the case. </p>.<p>"<em>For print media, we ask for a corrigendum.. If they have to be prosecuted then under what law?"</em></p>.<p>The Court also asked Aggarwal to seek instructions on this aspect. </p>.<p>In his petition, Tanha has alleged that the police officials leaked his purported disclosure statement, which was recorded during the investigation, to the media.</p>.<p>While stating that the statement had no evidentiary value, Tanha had raised objections against news reports saying that he had already confessed to orchestrating the Delhi riots.</p>.<p>Responding to the allegations, Delhi Police has responded that none of the police personnel had leaked out any details of the investigation.</p>.<p>The matter would be heard next on October 23. </p>
<p>The Delhi High Court today turned down Zee News' request to place in sealed cover, the name of the journalist who procured the alleged confessional statement of a Delhi riots accused. (<em>Asif Iqbal Tanha vs State & ors)</em></p>.<p>"<em>I am not accepting anything in a sealed cover”</em>, the Court said as it directed Zee News to comply with its order seeking an affidavit disclosing the source of the statement. </p>.Disclose source of alleged confessional statement of Delhi riots accused: Delhi HC tells Zee News.<p>A Single Judge Bench of <strong>Justice Vibhu Bakhru</strong> was hearing a petition filed by accused, Asif Tanha.</p>.<p>The counsel for Zee News, Advocate<strong> Vijay Aggarwal</strong> today also argued that the journalist was protected against disclosing the "source" of his/her information.</p>.<p>As Aggarwal claimed that the present case involved the constitutional right of a journalist and a person "<em>who himself had no regard for the Constitution</em>", the Court remarked, </p>.<div><blockquote>"You have no material whatsoever to make that allegation.. Police itself is making a vigliance enquiry (into the leak)..What is your Constitutional right to take out the document?"</blockquote><span class="attribution"></span></div>.<p>Aggarwal submitted that procurement of documents, as in the present case, was a practice that was undertaken by journalists worldwide. </p>.<p>The Court, however, stated, </p>.<div><blockquote>As a journalist you misrepresented the document to a different level.. Even the accused has no right to see it (before the filing of chargesheet)..</blockquote><span class="attribution"></span></div>.<p>Stating that prima facie, there could not be any argument, the Court clarified that Article 19(1)(a) did not give one an absolute right qua documents that were yet to become part of public record. </p>.<p><em>"You Editor didn't know (that it was not part of public record)?.. Put on affidavit whatever you think your right is</em>.", the Court said. </p>.<p>Further acknowledging that the alleged disclosure statement could not have been shared by the accused at the relevant time, the Court "hoped" that the Delhi Police would "put their house in order". </p>.<p>"<em>It also effects the investigation</em>", the Court said. </p>.<p>Before parting, the Court also asked the counsel for Tanha, Advocate <strong>Siddharth Agarwal </strong>to consider what could be the next step in the case. </p>.<p>"<em>For print media, we ask for a corrigendum.. If they have to be prosecuted then under what law?"</em></p>.<p>The Court also asked Aggarwal to seek instructions on this aspect. </p>.<p>In his petition, Tanha has alleged that the police officials leaked his purported disclosure statement, which was recorded during the investigation, to the media.</p>.<p>While stating that the statement had no evidentiary value, Tanha had raised objections against news reports saying that he had already confessed to orchestrating the Delhi riots.</p>.<p>Responding to the allegations, Delhi Police has responded that none of the police personnel had leaked out any details of the investigation.</p>.<p>The matter would be heard next on October 23. </p>
