Media can't label accused as mastermind, scamster or kingpin before trial: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that while the media is free to report factual developments concerning criminal cases, it should refrain from describing an accused as a "mastermind", "scamster", "kingpin" or using other labels which imply that the accused is guilty even before a trial [Rishu Shree v State of Bihar].

In an order dated June 24, Justice Ansul noted that news outlets cannot conduct a media trial that undermines an individual's right to a fair trial. The Court emphasised that a person's reputation cannot be prejudiced before a court determines whether the accused is guilty or not.

"Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act. This is pre-judging the issue when the matter is subjudice," observed the Court.

The Court passed the order while hearing a petition filed by one Rishu Shree who sought the quashing of an first information report (FIR) registered by the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in connection with an alleged tender scam.

He contended that although the FIR had been registered on April 30, 2025, raids at his residence were carried out only on May 27, 2026, when he was arrested.

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, argued that although nothing incriminating was recovered during the search, television channels, newspapers, online news portals, and social media platforms carried extensive reports portraying him as guilty.

Shree also submitted that prime-time television debates had publicly condemned him even before trial, creating prejudice against him and potentially influencing witnesses.

The Court examined several news reports placed on record, including headlines referring to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, searches linked to the alleged tender scam and reports describing Shree as having built a network to secure government tenders through commissions.

It noted that similar content had proliferated across social media platforms, with Shree being declared guilty before the trial had even begun.

The Court reiterated that freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions. In this regard, reference was made to Supreme Court precedents cautioning against trial by media, including State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, MP Lohia v State of West Bengal and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v SEBI.

The Court observed that there must be a balance between the freedom of press and an accused person's right to a fair trial.

The Court further recorded that the ED's counsel had also expressed concern over the recent trend of media trials.

The Court declined to impose a complete prohibition on reporting, but warned against irresponsible media coverage.

"Having seen both sides of the coin, this court is clearly not in a view of media gag over the issue. However, the court would certainly direct for control over irresponsible reporting and imputation of guilt upon the petitioner without any initiation trial at all," it said.

The Court proceeded to direct that media organisations may continue reporting factual developments and court proceedings but shall not:

• Describe Shree as guilty of the alleged offences.

• Portray Shree as having committed the alleged offences.

• Publish or broadcast material determining Shree's criminal liability.

• Use expressions assigning guilt, such as "mastermind, scamster, kingpin or equivalent description conveying criminal responsibility."

• Conduct media trials based on alleged confessions, investigation material or unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined.

The Court, however, clarified that its order is not meant to prohibit accurate and responsible media reports.

"However, nothing in this order shall prevent fair, accurate and objective reporting of the proceedings pending before the court or publication of the facts," said the Court.

Additionally, the Court directed the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) to explain the one-year delay between the registration of the FIR and the raid conducted at the Shree's residence. It also directed the ED to file its counter affidavit.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 10.

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao along with Advocates Arshadeep Singh Khurana, Kumaresh Singh, Ujjwal Raj, Shruti, Anirvan Choudhary, Jyoti Prakash and Sahil Kumar appeared for Rishu Shree (petitioner).

Advocate Arvind Kumar represented the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU).

Special Counsel for ED Zohaib Hossain along with Advocates Prabhat Kumar Singh, Pranjal Tripathi, Vishal Kuma and Utsav appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

[Read Order]