Date 15h Oct 2008 Source: Times of India
Grover Episode: HC Gives Police Two Weeks To Clarify Errors, If Any, In Reports
Shibu Thomas
Shibu Thomas
_____________________________________________
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday asked the police to consider laying down guidelines for sharing information with the media in ongoing criminal investigations. While hearing a petition filed by Kannada actor Maria Susairaj, an accused in the Neeraj Grover murder case, a division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice Ashutosh Kumbhakoni emphasised the freedom of the press and at the same time, underlined the need for “self-imposed restrictions’’. “It is our duty, as a court of law, to protect everybody’s freedom, especially that of the press,’’ said Justice Nazki. “Similarly, the press must also ponder over their role and should try to protect the credibility of court. If people lose faith in court, they lose faith in the judicial system.”
The court seemed concerned over the selective leaking of information by the police, especially in the Maria case, where a spate of reports appeared about the alleged confession made by the actor. The court found that the reports on Susairaj’s confessional statements were factually incorrect. “The police have a responsibility to ensure that any information given to the media should be accurate and not false,’’ said the judge. “Sometimes, half truths are given out, which are different from the impression that an investigating officer has about the culpability of a particular person.’’ Reiterating that it was the duty of the police “to inform the public of the progress in a crime investigation,’’ the court suggested that the department should “create a system by which one responsible officer will share information (with the media) rather than every investigating officer’’.
The judges sought to draw a delicate balance between press freedom and responsible reporting in the age of 24x7 media. “The press and the judiciary, both should be independent and free. Both should not have any fetters, but the more freedom you have, more responsibility is involved and, therefore, both these institutions are required to have selfimposed restrictions,’’ said Justice Nazki. The judges seemed especially concerned about the effect that trial by media in high profile cases had on the credibility of courts. “If reports in the media make a particular person seem guilty or innocent, and finally when the matter goes to trial, if the result is opposed to the perceptions of people, they tend to believe that the court was not fair.’’ Justice Kumbhakoni, too, echoed the views in the judgment penned by him. “It will be too risky to permit the media to give a wide and sweeping pre-trial publicity of any case, virtually turning a trial by court into a trial by media, especially on the basis of undisclosed sources of information.’’ Justice Kumbhakoni underscored the value of investigative journalism, which he said, was an inseparable facet of the freedom of press. The judge added that this freedom came with a rider and had to be tempered with responsibility. “It is only the responsible press, which can claim not only freedom but also immunity from being compelled to divulge the source of its information,’’ said the judge. Maria, in her petition, had sought a copy of her alleged confessional statement and had also claimed that while she was denied a copy, the statements were published in the media. The court said it was the prerogative of the investigating agency to supply a copy of the statement to an accused before filing a chargesheet. The court, however, asked the police to issue a clarification within two weeks if any factually incorrect report on the confession was published in the media.
The court seemed concerned over the selective leaking of information by the police, especially in the Maria case, where a spate of reports appeared about the alleged confession made by the actor. The court found that the reports on Susairaj’s confessional statements were factually incorrect. “The police have a responsibility to ensure that any information given to the media should be accurate and not false,’’ said the judge. “Sometimes, half truths are given out, which are different from the impression that an investigating officer has about the culpability of a particular person.’’ Reiterating that it was the duty of the police “to inform the public of the progress in a crime investigation,’’ the court suggested that the department should “create a system by which one responsible officer will share information (with the media) rather than every investigating officer’’.
The judges sought to draw a delicate balance between press freedom and responsible reporting in the age of 24x7 media. “The press and the judiciary, both should be independent and free. Both should not have any fetters, but the more freedom you have, more responsibility is involved and, therefore, both these institutions are required to have selfimposed restrictions,’’ said Justice Nazki. The judges seemed especially concerned about the effect that trial by media in high profile cases had on the credibility of courts. “If reports in the media make a particular person seem guilty or innocent, and finally when the matter goes to trial, if the result is opposed to the perceptions of people, they tend to believe that the court was not fair.’’ Justice Kumbhakoni, too, echoed the views in the judgment penned by him. “It will be too risky to permit the media to give a wide and sweeping pre-trial publicity of any case, virtually turning a trial by court into a trial by media, especially on the basis of undisclosed sources of information.’’ Justice Kumbhakoni underscored the value of investigative journalism, which he said, was an inseparable facet of the freedom of press. The judge added that this freedom came with a rider and had to be tempered with responsibility. “It is only the responsible press, which can claim not only freedom but also immunity from being compelled to divulge the source of its information,’’ said the judge. Maria, in her petition, had sought a copy of her alleged confessional statement and had also claimed that while she was denied a copy, the statements were published in the media. The court said it was the prerogative of the investigating agency to supply a copy of the statement to an accused before filing a chargesheet. The court, however, asked the police to issue a clarification within two weeks if any factually incorrect report on the confession was published in the media.
Analysis:
The media plays a very important role as a source of information, education and entertainment. It is a mirror of the society. Media is supposed to link public with the government. The judiciary asks police to follow the lying guidelines regarding sharing information with media. Here we see the divergence between the policy statements and policy outputs. The policy says that police should share the information with media. In case filed by Kannada actor Maria Susairaj, an accused in the Neeraj Grover murder case, the court emphasizes the freedom of press. It says that it is duty of a court of law, to protect everybody’s especially that of the press. The court seemed concerned over the selective leaking of information by the police, especially in the Maria case, where a spate of reports appeared about the alleged confession made by the actor. The court found that the reports on Susairaj’s confessional statements were factually incorrect. The policy statement says that the police have a responsibility to ensure that any information given to the media should be accurate and not false. But policy output or actual action taken by police reflects that the information shared with media was false. Thus this is an illustration of how divergence between what actors or agency implementing policy are doing and what they should do.
On the other hand, the news paper article throws light on role of media and influences of media in policy making and implementation. The public opinion is often unstable and gets influenced by media to a large extend. It comprises of print and electronic media which shapes the public opinion. Media reports on the content of the issues as well as the participants. Hence it is responsibility of media that it should not misinterpret the content. As pointed out in the above by the judiciary that it should not make a particular person seem guilty or innocent which might affect the credibility of court. It is duty of judiciary. Especially in the criminal cases it should not sensitized the issue for publicity and should follow self-imposed restrictions. However it is free present different dimensions of the case and open the discussion for public.
On the other hand, the news paper article throws light on role of media and influences of media in policy making and implementation. The public opinion is often unstable and gets influenced by media to a large extend. It comprises of print and electronic media which shapes the public opinion. Media reports on the content of the issues as well as the participants. Hence it is responsibility of media that it should not misinterpret the content. As pointed out in the above by the judiciary that it should not make a particular person seem guilty or innocent which might affect the credibility of court. It is duty of judiciary. Especially in the criminal cases it should not sensitized the issue for publicity and should follow self-imposed restrictions. However it is free present different dimensions of the case and open the discussion for public.
No comments:
Post a Comment