The Supreme Court has issued a landmark directive, instructing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to create a comprehensive manual governing media briefings by police personnel. The decision, handed down by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra, marks a pivotal development in addressing the balance between free speech, fair investigations, and victim privacy.

The Court's decision stems from two critical concerns: the procedures surrounding police encounters and the protocols for conducting media briefings during ongoing criminal investigations. While the former was previously addressed in the 2014 PUCL v. State of Maharashtra judgment, the latter now occupies the Court's focus.

Chief Justice Chandrachud underscored the growing importance of the issue, especially in light of evolving electronic media reporting. He noted that this matter involves numerous layers of public interest, including the public's right to information during investigations, the potential impact of police disclosures on investigations, the rights of the accused, and the overall administration of justice.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appointed as an amicus curiae, recommended that while the media cannot be restricted from reporting, the sources of information, often government entities, can be regulated to prevent conflicting narratives from being presented to the media. He cited examples like the Aarushi case to support this approach.

The Court emphasized the delicate balance between the fundamental right to free speech and expression, the rights of the accused to a fair investigation, and the privacy of victims. It acknowledged that media reporting implicating an accused is unfair and can lead to public suspicion.

Highlighting the need for updated guidelines, the Court pointed out that existing ones were crafted over a decade ago, and media reporting of crime has evolved significantly since then. The nature of information disclosed to the media should be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the age and gender of victims and accused individuals.

The Court firmly stated that police disclosure should not result in a "media trial," aiming to prevent prejudgment of the accused's guilt.

The MHA has been given a three-month deadline to prepare the comprehensive manual, with DGPs from all states required to submit their suggestions within one month. Recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission will also be considered. The MHA must conclude this exercise within three months and provide the guidelines to amicus curiae Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankarnarayanan and counsel for NHRC, Ms. Shobha Gupta.

The case is set for its next hearing in the second week of January 2024.

Case Title: PUCL v State of Maharashtra | Crl.A. No. 1255/1999