Every Publication Regarding A Court Case May Not Prejudice Trial Of That Case: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Gag Order Against Media
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking directions against media outlets to conceal the identity of a suspended police constable involved in a fake encounter and insurance fraud. The Court held that merely because a publication pertains to a Court proceeding, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the publication either tends to impair the impartiality of the Court or affects the ability of the Court to determine the true facts.
The Court, in its decision, emphasized that a mere perusal of newspaper cuttings did not provide any indication that the publication was connected to a consumer complaint involving the petitioner.
The Court noted that gag orders should only be passed when necessary to prevent a substantial risk to the fairness of a trial, and in this case, the guidelines established by the Apex Court were not found to be violated.
“Merely because a publication pertains to a Court proceeding this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the publication either tends to impair the impartiality of the Court or affects the ability of the Court to determine the true facts”, the Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed.
Advocate Aditi Shivadhatri appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Himanshu Pathak appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct certain media outlets to conceal their identity in news articles mentioning the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged a threat from a police officer connected to a local land mafia and claimed procedural overreach in a related writ petition filed by the Petitioner's mother.
The Court, upon reviewing newspaper cuttings, noted that a suspended Constable was implicated in a fake encounter at Connaught Place and linked to an insurance fraud involving stolen cars. The Bench observed that the petitioner has sought a gag order against Respondents No. 2 & 3 without presenting all relevant facts and material.
The Court held that this petition was an abuse of the legal process, as the newspaper cuttings do not indicate any connection to a consumer complaint involving the petitioner or their mother's writ petition. The Bench emphasized that gag orders should be issued only when necessary to prevent a substantial risk to the fairness of a trial.
“It is well settled that gag orders should be passed only when it is necessary and to prevent substantial risk to fairness of a trial”, the Court observed.
In the absence of supporting material, the Court concluded that the guidelines set by the Apex Court have not been violated.
“One has to carefully see the nature of the publication and find out as to the content of the publication will cause prejudice to the trial of a case or not. Prejudice by a publication can be of two categories one which tends to impair the courts impartiality and the other which prejudices the court's ability to determine true facts”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Ajay Kumar v Union Of India & Ors. (2024:DHC:603)
