Police authorities are not the adjudicators of guilt or innocence of any person

Pranjal Sharma | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 5th August 2020

Devangana Kalita V. Delhi Police

FACTS 

1. The petitioner is an accomplished student and is currently enrolled as a student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, she believes that the CAA is unconstitutional and has participated in peaceful protests for seeking repeal of it and is currently in judicial custody in FIR No. 50/2020.
2. The petitioner’s grievance in the present petition stems from a “Brief Note” dated 02.06.2020 (hereafter referred to as ‘the impugned note’) circulated by the Delhi Police to various media agencies. The impugned note disclosed names of two girls including the petitioner and alleged that they belong to ‘Pinjra Tod’ Group and were actively involved in hatching a conspiracy to cause riots near Jafrabad Metro Station. It is also alleged that they were part of a larger conspiracy and were found to be connected to “India Against Hate” Group and Umar Khalid. The impugned note disclosed the filing of charge sheet in the Jafrabad Riot case and the Tahir Hussain case, the petitioner’s grievance relates to the contents of the impugned note that relate to the case arising from Jafrabad Riot case with FIR No. 50/2020 under sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/333/323/283/188/427/307/302/120B/34 of the IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
3. The petitioner contends that the investigation agency (Delhi Police) has leaked information selectively to the media with a view to spread a false propaganda against the petitioner and prejudice public opinion. The petitioner also refers to various other messages that are circulated in social media that draw from the impugned note. Petitioner contends that it is an attempt to prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and, thus, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
4. The petitioner referred to the decisions of the SC in Rajinderan Chingaravelu v. Mr R.K. Mishra, Additional Commissioner of I T & Ors^[1], Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI^[2], State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi^[3], and Manu Sharma v. State^[4]. In addition, petitioner relied on the opinion of Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in Romila Thapar v. Union of India ^[5] in support of her contention that the impugned note violated the petitioner’s rights and the respondents ought to be restrained from making such selective leaks till the conclusion of the trial.
5. The defendant submitted that the Delhi Police didn’t issued the impugned note with the intention of causing any prejudice to the petitioner or with a view to attack her reputation or to run a media trial but for the sole purpose to accurately portray the case, contending that it was necessary in view of the media campaign carried out by members of the ‘Pinjra Tod’ Group and their supporters to sway the public opinion against the actions of the Delhi Police. Defendant stated that such a campaign would adversely affecting the reputation of the Delhi Police and public faith in the authorities and that under these circumstances, it was necessary for the Delhi Police to issue the impugned note to inform the public that the petitioner was not being ‘persecuted’ but ‘prosecuted’ on the basis of investigation and evidence that she was involved in commission of offences. 

JUDGEMENT 

The court observed that a plain reading of the said affidavit indicates that instead of addressing the said issue, the affidavit contained extensive averments declaring the petitioner guilty of several offences. It also appears that some of contents of the affidavit are not affirmations of truth but more a matter of opinion. The court also keeps in mind that the petitioner has not been found guilty of any of the alleged offences. An affidavit affirming that the petitioner is guilty of the offences would clearly be inapposite. The court states that it is also necessary to bear in mind that human dignity is recognized as a constitutional value and a right to maintain one’s reputation is a facet of human dignity. A person cannot be denuded of his or her dignity merely because he/she is an accused or is under trial.

It is then stated that that the scope of the present petition is limited to examining whether the Delhi Police can be faulted for disclosing the said information in their press release. To which the hon’ble court states that, the police authorities are not the adjudicators of guilt or innocence of any person. And, clearly, the police cannot pronounce on the guilt or innocence of any person. 

The hon’ble court also observed that, there is a cardinal difference in attempting to influence formation of an opinion that an accused is not guilty and the state attempting to influence an opinion to the contrary. An expression of an opinion that an accused is not guilty does not destroy the presumption of innocence that must be maintained till an accused is tried and found guilty would certainly destroy the presumption of innocence. The approach that it would be justified to fuel a media trial merely because the sympathizers of the accused are proclaiming his/her innocence, cannot be countenanced. 

The court holds that, the impugned note had been issued by the Public Relations Officer and was duly authorized. The impugned note was forwarded to all leading dailies and media houses; therefore the impugned note was not selectively disseminated. The court also held that although it was not necessary for police to name the petitioner in a press note, but it did not violate the Art.21 of constitution. 

It was also observed that the police has been measured and, therefore, they have only issued one note in respect of this case establishing that they are not running a campaign to malign the petitioner. The Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 also stipulates that briefing should normally be done only on four stages of the case: (a) at the time of registration; (b) at the time of arrest of the accused; (c) at the time of charge sheeting of the case; and (d) at final outcome of the case such as conviction/acquittal. The impugned note has been justified as having been issued at the time of filing of the charge sheet. Thus, in normal course, there would be no necessity of issuing any further communication till the final outcome of the case. 

The court also holds that the cases concerning communal riots are undoubtedly sensitive cases and FIRs filed in such cases are not being publicly disclosed.

The petition was disposed. 

For advanced study on Social Media trial Refer – https://lexforti.com/legal-news/supreme-court-on-media-trial/

---

^[1] (2010) 1 SCC 457

^[2] (2012) 10 SCC 603

^[3] (1997) 8 SCC 386

^[4] (2010) 6 SCC 1

^[5] (2018) 10 SCC 753