Some media coverage of FIR ‘prejudicial’: HC
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Friday said certain media coverage of investigation in the FIR against climate activist Disha Ravi for her alleged involvement in sharing a toolkit backing farmers’ protest indicates “sensationalism and prejudicial reporting”, but declined to order removal of any such content at this stage.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said the interim plea for removal of such news content and tweets by Delhi Police would be considered at a later stage.
The court, however, asked media houses to ensure that no leaked investigation material is broadcast as it could affect the probe and directed Delhi Police to abide by its stand on affidavit that it has not leaked nor intends to leak any probe details to the press. The court also said that police would be entitled to hold press briefings in the matter in accordance with the law and the agency’s 2010 office memorandum with regard to media coverage of cases. To media houses, the court said they should ensure the information received from their sources is authentic and only verified content ought to be publicised as also that the investigation is not hampered.
The court was hearing Ravi’s plea to restrain police from leaking to the media any probe material in relation to the FIR lodged against her. The petition also sought to restrain the media from publishing the content or extract of any private chats, including those on Whatsapp, between her and third parties.
The police, represented by
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, placed an affidavit before the court categorically denying leaking of any information to the media.
It also assured the court that it has no intention of leaking any information to the media.
The ASG during the hearing said that the possibility of leakage by some officer of the agency cannot be ruled out entirely.
The court however directed that the police has to abide by its affidavit. The media houses, one of them represented by advocate Mrinal Bharti, told the court that the source of information in the present case was the Delhi Police and its tweets.
ASG Chetan Sharma and central government standing counsel Ajay Digpaul, appearing for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, told the court that the petition was not maintainable as no complaint was first made to it for taking action against any TV channel or media house for any alleged incorrect reporting of the case.
The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) told the court that it can take any action only if a complaint is made to it regarding the media houses named in the plea.
It further told the court that media houses named in the plea were members of the News Broadcasters Association (NBA).
Ravi, in her plea, has said she is “severely aggrieved and prejudiced by the media trial surrounding her arrest and the ongoing investigation, where she is being viscerally attacked by the respondent 1 (police) and several media houses”.
She has claimed that her arrest from Bengaluru on February 13 by a Delhi Police cyber cell was “wholly unlawfully and without basis”. She has also contended that in the present circumstances, it was “highly likely” that the general public will perceive the news items “as being conclusive as to the guilt of the petitioner (Ravi)”.