No law bars media from disclosing accused's name: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court recently observed that mere reporting of the contents of a First Information Report (FIR) does not amount to media trial [Rabden Sherpa v State of Sikkim]

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan added that crime reporting is a part of media duty and no law prohibits disclosure of the name of an accused person.

“The press and the media is the fourth pillar of democracy which should always be alert as a watch dog of our society. Reporting a crime is part of their duty. Fair and accurate reporting of the factum of lodging of the FIR against the accused person without disclosing the name and identity of the victim and judging the act alleged cannot be termed as “media trial” and thereafter seek sanctions against it,” the Bench said.

The Court also said that the right to freedom of speech encompasses the right to freedom of press.

“Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It permits individuals to express their thoughts, opinions and ideas. The fundamental freedoms includes and encompases the freedom of the press. The freedom of press ensures a robust and informed citizenry. In fact it encourages the pursuit of truth,” it said.

If the press and the media are doing their duty fairly and accurately, judges should restrain from dragging them to courts on the mere asking, the High Court said.

The Court made the observations while dealing with a plea challenging publication of a news report by Sikkim Chronicle regarding the registration of an FIR against an accused person. 

The accused sought removal of the report as well as a prohibition against further publishing of any stories about the case.

After considering the submissions, Justice Pradhan noted that the Supreme Court has mandated uploading of FIRs on police websites.

However, the top court has not given any direction that the names of the accused and the contents of the FIR against him should not be disclosed, the High Court said.

“If what the learned Counsel argues before this Court is to be upheld then the direction to upload the FIR in public websites given by the Supreme Court would be otiose. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel’s submissions,” the Court said.

The Court was also apprised about provisions of the proposed Police Manual for Media Briefing filed by an amicus curiae before the Supreme Court. However, it noted that there was nothing in it against disclosing the name of the accused.

The Court also said that an accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends infringement of his right to fair trial, would be entitled to seek an order of postponement of the offending publication or postponement of reporting of certain phases of trial including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant.

However, it added that such a decision should be taken on the facts of each case. In the present case, the facts do not warrant such an action, the judge opined.

“I am of the view that this is not a case where reasonable restriction upon the press and media is required to be imposed. I find that the reportage by Sikkim Chronicle reporting both side of the story (i) the contents of the FIR and (ii) the letter of the son of the accused is a fair reportage well within their rights and duties,” it said.

The Court also said that the right to privacy no longer subsists when media reportage is based on public records.

Hence, it rejected the plea.

Advocate Abhinav Kant Jha appeared for the petitioner.

Government Advocate SK Chettri appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]