Delhi HC restrains news channels from displaying contents of chargesheet in Shraddha Walker murder case

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad submitted that Aaj Tak had got access to the narco-analysis video of accused Aaftab Poonawala and the channel was restrained by the trial court from showing any such content. Prasad argued that an order needs to be passed against all other channels as well since the video might have been shared with others and if telecasted, it would prejudice the case.

The HC further issued notice to the Centre through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, TV Today Network Limited, which runs Aaj Tak news channel, and Poonawala on the Delhi Police’s plea and listed it for further hearing on August 3.

The plea stated that on April 10, Aaj Tak announced “that it has accessed the recordings of Narco test wherein the accused has confessed to the gruesome killing of Shraddha Vikas Walker and the said news channel is going to play the same as exclusive for the viewers at 12 noon show”.

The plea further submitted that apprehending such show to be detrimental to the case as well as prejudicial for fair trial of the accused, and being detrimental to larger public interest as the “telecast of such proceedings may lead to serious law and order problem”, the police filed an application before the trial court who is seized of the matter.

The plea stated that on April 10, the trial court–Link Additional Sessions Judge Saket directed that till the next date, Aaj Tak shall not utilise in any form any material relating to the FIR…”, posting the case on April 17.

The plea stated that when the matter was listed for further hearing on Monday and the court posed a specific question to Aaj Tak‘s counsel as to how they got access to the digital evidences, “the counsel evaded to answer however admitted that said contents are available with the channel”.

In its April 17 order, Additional Sessions Judge Manisha Khurana Kakkar noted that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the channel’s counsel that the charge sheet is a public document. Thereafter the channel’s counsel gave an undertaking that it shall not “telecast/publish/disseminate the contents of Psychological assessment and voice layered test, narco analysis and conversation recorded on the App of Dr Practo for the next three days…” in view of which the sessions court directed the channel to not telecast the said material till April 20.

Police plea further stated that leaked evidences in digital format are capable of being duplicated and disseminated to multiple media houses, and once disseminated, it would create “undue hardship in containing its circulation”.

“….the media houses have no vested right to use the material of investigation inasmuch as the charge sheet is not a public document and is not to be used for the purpose of advancing its business to the detriment of larger public interest of affording fair trial to the accused. Hence, the trial court should have completely restrained the respondent no. 2 from using any part of the charge sheet…,” the plea submitted.