While prohibiting a media trial against a litigant in a tender scam case, the Patna High Court has held that maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of a defamatory act, an immoral act or even an indecent act. The High Court further restrained the media platforms from using expressions imputing guilt like mastermind, scamster, kingpin or equivalent description conveying criminal responsibility.

The High Court was considering an application filed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pertaining to a Special Vigilance Unit Case.

The Single Bench of Justice Ansul held, “Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act. This is pre-judging the issue when the matter is subjudice.”

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao represented the Petitioner while Advocate Arvind Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the raid in this case was conducted more than a year after the registration of the FIR in the residential premises of the petitioner, and he was arrested on the same date. It was further alleged that nothing incriminating was found against him. Still, after the arrest, various television channels, newspapers, online news portals, and social media handles commenced extensive and lurid coverage of the case, broadcasting one-sided narratives that portrayed the petitioner as guilty even before the commencement of the trial. The Petitioner claimed that several prime-time news debates were conducted by prominent TV anchors, wherein the petitioner was condemned, vilified and subjected to public humiliation without any opportunity to present his side. As per the petitioner, the coverage had a direct effect of influencing public opinion against the petitioner, prejudicing the minds of potential witnesses and creating an atmosphere inimical to a fair trial.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was a report where the heading was Bihar’s Curious Case of an indispensable engineer: What an ED probe found. Another report said Bihar Police searches the houses of two IAS officers over a tender scam. It was also noticed that in another news report, the photograph of the petitioner was there, saying that the tender scam accused Rishu avoids direct answers and denies wrongdoing.

The Bench thus stated, “It is to be seen that these news items are not only in the mainline press or Television channels, but the social media platforms are flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even initiation of the trial”, it stated.

“The petitioner may be accused of a serious case his rights to get a fair trial would not be ousted by the magnitude of the allegation…”, it added.

The Bench was not in the view of a media gag over the issue, however, it ordered “Pending consideration of the present petition all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms shall be at liberty to report the factual developments concerning the case and proceedings before competent courts.”

The Bench prohibited the platforms from describing the petitioner as guilty of the offences alleged or portraying the petitioner as having committed the offences alleged. The platforms have also been prohibited from publishing or broadcasting material pertaining to determining criminal liability or conducting media trials based upon alleged confessions, investigation material, unproved document whose evidentiary value was to be determined.

Listing the matter on July 10, 2026, the Bench ordered, “The above restraint shall extend to digital publications, online portals, video streaming services, podcast, social media accounts, channels and other internet based platforms.”

Cause Title: Rishu Shree v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No.32409 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, Advocates Arshadeep Singh Khurana, Kumaresh Singh, Ujjwal Raj, Shruti, Anirvan Choudhary, Jyoti Prakash

Respondent: Advocates Arvind Kumar, Special Counsel Zohaib Hossain, Advocates Prabhat Kumar Singh, Pranjal Tripathi, Vishal Kumar Singh, Utsav

Click here to read/download Order


Patna High CourtJustice Ansul

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.