Press release led to mob violence: Gauhati HC pulls up Mizoram Police for revealing key details of murder probe

The Gauhati High Court recently pulled up Mizoram authorities over a police press release that disclosed sensitive details of an ongoing criminal investigation and exposed a suspect’s family to public retaliation [C Laltanpuii v The State of Mizoram & Ors.]..By way of an order passed on August 27, Justice Rajesh Mazumdar declared the press release issued by the Mizoram Police on January 27 to be in violation of the prescribed Police Manual for Media Briefing. "The impugned press release is declared to violate the protocol laid down in the Police Manual for media briefing. The authority who had issued the aforesaid press release shall cause the same to be recalled forthwith and in any case, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order," directed the Court.The Court also directed weekly monitoring of the investigation into the mob violence that followed..The case concerned the death of a young woman whose body was found near a football playground in December, 2025. During the investigation, police suspected the husband of petitioner, who died three days later after falling from the first floor of his home.In its January press release, the police identified the deceased-husband as the principal accused and disclosed sensitive details from the ongoing investigation, including suspected bloodstains in his vehicle, call-detail records, forensic findings and personal details about the victim, including her pregnancy.The Court held that such disclosures went beyond the limits prescribed under the Police Manual for Media Briefing. It noted that the police had revealed evidence theories, forensic details and investigative tactics while the investigation was still underway.The Court said the disclosure had immediate consequences for the petitioner's family."This disclosure had admittedly and obviously led to public outrage and mob violence," the judge noted..On the same day as the press release, three local organisations issued notices stating that the petitioner's family would no longer be allowed to reside within the jurisdiction of the concerned local council. An angry mob subsequently gathered at the family's residence, where construction work was underway, and allegedly resorted to stone-pelting, burning and looting. The petitioner's daughter's scooter and construction materials were also set ablaze.The State told the Court that a suo motu FIR was registered on January 29 and that several persons involved in the violence had been identified. However, it said arrests could not be made because of the volatile situation and because the police were heavily outnumbered.The Court, however, was critical of this explanation. "The irony we notice in this case is that the respondents, in their affidavit, have tried to justify the failure to afford protection to the property of the petitioner and her family by stating that the police personnel were heavily outnumbered; however, no indication has been given as to the steps which were initiated or attempted to be taken for affording protection," observed the Court..Referring to the Supreme Court's directions in Tehseen S Poonawalla v Union of India on preventing and investigating mob violence, the Court said the authorities had not indicated that the identified accused had been chargesheeted or that the matter had been taken forward for trial."The fact that the law-enforcing agencies have expressed their failure to maintain law and order in the face of an angry mob is, to say the least, most unfortunate," observed the Court..Accordingly, it directed the investigating officer to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines on mob violence. The Court ordered the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to monitor the case on a weekly basis, and warned that any failure by officials to prevent, investigate or facilitate the speedy trial of such offences could amount to deliberate negligence or misconduct..It further directed the State to circulate the Police Manual for Media Briefing to the concerned Home Department and police authorities, with the latter required to circulate it to all police stations.Additionally, the Court appointed Additional District and Sessions Judge Lalngaihmawia Zote as the Claims Commissioner. The Commissioner has been directed to assess the petitioner's claim for ₹7,61,130 in damages and submit recommendations to the High Court within three months.The Court will consider the report before deciding the compensation payable to the petitioner. The matter will be next heard on December 4..Advocate J C Lalnunsanga represented the petitioner. Government advocate Lalnunhlui Ralte appeared for the State of Mizoram and its police/State authorities.Advocate Robert Laltlana represented the local council chairman and representatives of three local organisations..[Read Order]