Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE THROUGH SUPDTT, CENTRAL JAIL,N.DELHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHARULATA JOSHI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/1999
BENCH:
G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah
JUDGMENT:
PATTANAIK.J.
Competing rights, namely, right of press to
interview a prisoner in jail and right of jail authorities
prohibiting such interview arise for consideration in the
present appeal. One Babloo Srivastava, who is in judicial
custody and is being tried for offence under Section 302
read with Section 120B had been lodged in Tihar Jail. The
news magazine ’India Today’ moved an application before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi seeking permission to
interview the under-trial prisoner in jail. The learned
Sessions Judge by his order dated 6.11.95 granted the
permission sought for. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order the prosecuting agency moved the High Court in
Revision. By the impugned order dated 1st May, 1996, the
High Court did not interfere with the order of the learned
Sessions Judge granting permission but modified the same by
issuing the following directions:-
"However, it is made clear that the
interview and/or photographs of Babloo
Srivastava would be taken only if he
expressed his willingness and not otherwise.
If given, the respondent newsmagazine is
expected to publish the interview with a
sense of propriety and balance and without
offending the law of contempt of Courts or
impairing the administration of justice."
The aforesaid order is being challenged in this appeal. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously
argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no
jurisdiction to issue the permission in question and the
order itself indicates that the learned Sessions Judge had
passed the order mechanically without application of mind.
He had also contended that though the High Court had
modified the said order yet the right of the Jail
authorities to deny interview for good reasons has been
conceded by this Court in Smt. Prabha Dutt. Vs. Union of
India and others - (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, and
therefore, the High Court was not justified in issuing the
impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents on
the other hand contended that there is no provisions in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Jail Manual prohibiting interviews of the undertrial
prisoners. In the absence of such prohibition the Right of
Press as engrafted in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be cutrailed
though the learned counsel urged that while granting
permission the Court may put such conditions as it thinks
fit in the interest of administration of justice. The
learned Sessions Judge, and therefore, there is no infirmity
with the order of the High Court so as to be interfered
with.
As the outset we take up the issue regarding the
authority of the learned Sessions Judge in granting
permission. As it appears, the accused is an under-trial
prisoner and the case is pending in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge who had granted the order of
permission. The trial of the accused being pending before
the Additional Sessions Judge it cannot be said that he had
no authority to issue permission to the Press to interview
the under trial inside the jail. We, therefore, do not find
any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant appearing in this Court.
Coming to the second limb of the objections raised
by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, there
cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the order
granting permission to the Press to interview an under-trial
cannot be passed mechanically without application of mind.
In as mush as the Court granting permission will have to
weigh the competing interest between the right of a Press
and the right of the Authorities prohibiting such interview
in the interest of administration of justice. The Court,
therefore, before disposing of an application seeking
permission to interview an under-trial in jail must notice
the jail authorities and find out whether there can be any
justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews.
The Court also should try to find out whether any
restrictions or prohibitions are contained in the Jail
Manual. The so called permission granted by the Court would
be subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations contained
in the Jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities
of fthe under-trial prisoners. In Smt. Prabha’s case
(supra) this Court had observed that the Constitutional
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression conferred by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Contitution which includes the
Freedom of Press is not an absolute right and does not
confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access
to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise
its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter
which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which
does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, public order, decency and morality.
The Court also in the aforesaid case expressed the opinion
that the Press must first obtain the willingness of the
person sought to be interviewed and no Court can pass any
order if the person to be interviewed expresses his
unwillingness. It was also indicated in the aforesaid
judgment that the so-called right of the Press which it
obtains on the basis of a permisison from the Court would be
subject to the prohibitions of the Jail Manual.
In Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra (1987) 4
Supreme Court Cases 373, this Court also considered the
Right of Press under Article 19(1)(a), the Right of the
Prisoners under Article 21 and reasonable restrictions which
can be put on such interviews. It was also observed that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the interviews of fthe prisoners become necessary as
otherwise the correct information may not be collected but
such access has to be controlled and regulated and the
Pressmen are not entitled to uncontrolled interview. It was
also stated that those who receive permission to have
interviews will have to agree to abide by reasonable
restrictions as contained in the Jail Manual, and therefore,
permission granted by thhe Court wpi;d ne sibject to
provisions contained in the Jail Manual itself.
Bearing in mind the ratio in the aforesaid two
judgments of this Court if we examine the order of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge it can be said without
hesitation that the said learned Additional Sessions Judge
disposed of the application seeking permission to interview
by passing a blanket order without applying his mind and
without even knowing the mind of the authorities and without
bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid two decisions. No Court would pass such a blanket
order mechanically without applying its mind to the relevant
factors, as the Press does not have an unfettered right to
interview an under trial prisoner in jail. When we examine
the impugned order of the High Court we find that the High
Court did bear in mind the ratio of the aforesaid two
decisions of this Court and, therefore, while granting
permission to interview the under-trial prisoners it
modified the blanket order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge putting such restrictions and conditions as contained
in the impugned order. No grievance, therefore, can be made
to the impugned order of the High Court. But after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties we may add a further
condition that the interview which the Press would take will
be regulated by the provisions contained in Jail Manuals and
therefore, the Jail Authorities can modulate the same in
accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Manual.
In the Course of hearing it was pointed out to us that the
said under-trial prisoner is no longer in Tihar Jail and we
do not know whether the News Magazine still intends to
interview the said under-trial prisoner. In the event the
Magazine still intends to interview the under-trial prisoner
then he must approach the appropriate Jail Authorities where
the said under-trial prisoner has been lodged and those
Authorities will bear in mind the conditions put by the High
Court and the observations made by us in this judgment
before allowing the interview in question.
This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions and observations.