People Entitled To Know About Any News Regarding Public Figures: Delhi HC Rejects Mahua Moitra's Plea Against Information Leakage By ED
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of leader of TMC (Trinamool Congress) and former Member of Parliament (MP), Mahua Moitra against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging leakage of her information.
Mahua had filed a writ petition before the court seeking direction against ED from preventing any information from being leaked, including any confidential, sensitive, unverified/unconfirmed information, to the print/electronic media in relation to the ongoing investigation/proceedings carried out by ED under which Summons have been issued to her.
A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The Petitioner herein is a former elected Member of Parliament and a public figure. The people are entitled to know about any news regarding the public figures. The accountability of persons who are public figures towards society is higher and they are subject to a higher level of public gaze and scrutiny.”
The Bench observed that since public figures are subject to closer scrutiny, unless the publications amount to harassment and invasion in private life of the individual public personality concerned or the family of the public personality, publications regarding the public life of such public personalities cannot be stopped from being published either by the Government or by the Orders of the Court.
Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
An investigation was initiated by ED against Mahua Moitra, a former elected MP from Krishnanagar, West Bengal constituency for an alleged violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). It was her case that ED had issued summons, calling upon her to appear physically before it along with certain documents. It was stated that the said summons was received at her address and that the news articles were published regarding the said summons even before she received the same. She contended that certain news pertaining to the investigation was also published, which according to her was leaked by ED.
The information regarding extension of time of three weeks sought by the petitioner for complying with the summons and the fact that her request for extension was rejected and a fresh summons was issued directing compliance of summons, was allegedly leaked. It was also stated that sensitive information of potential allegations against her which were part of the subject matter of the investigation being carried out by ED, were also leaked to the press. She, therefore, approached the Court via the writ petition, stating that the press reports were violating her right to privacy and dignity and right of fair investigation.
The High Court after hearing the submissions made by the parties noted, “It is well settled that modern communication mediums advance public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that takes place in a democratic set-up. Dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same has always frowned upon by Courts. It is also equally well settled that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom of press and communication needs in a democratic society i.e., the right to be informed and the right to inform, however, not at the cost of right to privacy.”
The Court further observed that the newspaper cuttings do not deal with the private life of the petitioner but are only reportings regarding the investigation that is being conducted against her who is a public figure and the same is unrelated to her private life. It added that there is nothing in the news articles which would have the effect of invading into the privacy of the petitioner or tend to impair the impartiality of the investigation or that it can have the effect of prejudicing the trial of the petitioner in the event it is initiated.
“It is well settled that Gag Orders against the media can be passed only when it has the potential to prejudice any investigation or an ongoing trial. … In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/ED that the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 has been and is being followed, and after perusing the news articles, this Court is of the opinion that the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioner by way of the present writ petition need not be granted at this stage”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1458)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, Advocates Samudra Sarangi, Saloni Jain, Nitya Jain, Akash Jaini, and Pravir Singh.
Respondents: Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Pranjal Tripathi, ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocates Amit Gupta, Vinay Yadav, Vikramaditya Singh, Sidhant Kumar, Manyaa Chandok, Om Batra, Mrinal Bharti, Manish Sekhari, Swapnil Srivastava, Sanjana Srivastava, Pavan Narang, Himanshu Sethi, and Aishwarya Chabra.
