‘Reporting crime media’s duty’: ‘Sikkim High Court says right to privacy no longer exists once crime enters public record

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan pointed out that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (AI-enhanced image).

‘Right to privacy no longer exist’

• The high court noted that the petition alleged that the Sikkim Chronicle had resorted to a media trial. 
• However, the high court found that merely reporting the fact of the registration of an FIR against the petitioner and its contents does not amount to a media trial.
• The Sikkim High Court pointed out that the publication by the Sikkim Chronicle is unobjectionable, as it is based on public records. 
• It was observed that once information forms part of a public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists in the same manner.
• The Sikkim High Court further added that such information becomes a legitimate subject of comment by the press, while cautioning that this does not legitimise a media trial.
• The high court found that the Sikkim Chronicle has reported both sides of the story- the contents of the FIR and the letter of the son of the accused, which is a fair reportage well within their rights and duties.
• The high court held that this is not a case where a reasonable restriction upon the press and media is required to be imposed.

‘Press making robust, informed citizenry’

• The high court pointed out that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• The court further added that it permits individuals to express their thoughts, opinions and ideas.
• It was highlighted by the court that the fundamental freedoms include and encompass the freedom of the press, which ensures a robust and informed citizenry. 
• The court even said that this freedom encourages the pursuit of truth, but also mentioned that the right to freedom of speech and expression is, however, not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions. 
• Justice Pradhan clarified that if the press and the media are doing their duty fairly and accurately, the courts should restrain themselves from dragging them into court on the mere asking. 

Case: Refrain Sikkim Chronicle

• According to the petitioner, Sikkim Chronicle published a report based on the police daily situation report, disclosing the registration of an FIR against him, including the name of his minor son.
• The petitioner contended that since his son is a minor, his identity should be protected, and alleged that the state police had wrongfully disclosed investigative material to the media.
• The petitioner sought a direction upon the state not to disclose investigative material relating to the petitioner to the media or any third party during the pendency of the investigation. 
• The petitioner also requested that the Sikkim Chronicle be directed to remove all publications relating to the FIR naming him and his minor son.
• He also requested that Sikkim Chronicle refrain from further publishing prejudicial, accusatory, or investigative content concerning him during the pendency of the investigation and trial. 
• Consequently, the petitioner also requested a direction for an appropriate inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of police investigative material to the media and to fix responsibility upon the concerned officials. 
• The petitioner further sought the protection of his identity, privacy and dignity, as well as that of his minor child and a restraining order that no further disclosure identifying the minor be made.