The Delhi High Court while dismissing a Writ Petition noted that public figures have a higher accountability towards the society and the right to privacy has to be balanced with the freedom of the press and since the public figures are subject to closer scrutiny, unless the publications amount to harassment and invasion in private life, publications regarding the public life of such public figure cannot be stopped from being published.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a former elected member of parliament and an investigation had been initiated by the Enforecment Directorate (hereinafter referred to as "ED") against her for an alleged violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The petitioner has alleged that even before the issuance of the summons by the ED, the news article in question was published regarding the summons and it has also been alleged that it contained certain news pertaining to the investigations as well which according to the petitioner has been leaked by the ED that is the respondent.
The petitioner has accordingly approached the Court with the allegation that the press reports are in violation of her right to privacy and dignity as well as her right to a fair investigation.
The petitioner’s side has relied on certain cases and has also drawn the attention of the court towards the advisory on media policy issued by the government of India with regard to information sharing by the investigation agency with the public through media.
The respondents on the other hand have denied the leaking of any sensitive information to the press regarding the investigation.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Government of India had issued an Advisory on Media Policy vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 regarding the sharing of information by the investigating agency with the public through media. This order lays down the precautions that need to be taken and according to it only authentic and appropriate information should be shared without hampering the process of investigation and issues of legal/privacy rights of the accused/victims and matters of strategic and national interest
The court further noted that the members of the electronic media have come out with a self-regulatory mechanism and have laid down the code of ethics and broadcasting standards some of the provisions of the Code of Ethics include Impartiality and objectivity in reporting, ensuring neutrality and privacy of the persons involved and the publishers are bound by them.
The court then went on to note that modern communication mediums advance the public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that take place in a democratic set-up and further that dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same has always frowned upon by Courts.
It was also noted that freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) and it includes freedom of the press and communication needs in a democratic society i.e., the right to be informed and the right to inform, however, not at the cost of right to privacy as was also noted in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India.
Further, since the petitioner is a former elected MP and a public figure, the people are entitled to know about any news with regards to them and accordingly, the court noted that the accountability of persons who are public figures towards society is higher and they are subject to a higher level of public gaze and scrutiny.
After analysing the alleged news articles, the court concluded that the newspaper cuttings do not deal with the private life of the Petitioner but are only reporting regarding the investigation that is being conducted against the Petitioner who is a public figure and same is unrelated to her private life and that there is nothing in the news article that would invade the privacy of the petitioner. It was also noted that Gag Orders against the media can be passed only when it has the potential to prejudice any investigation or an ongoing trial.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and was of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner shall not be granted at this stage.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2676/2024 & CM APPL. 10932/2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Ms. Saloni Jain, Ms. Nitya Jain, Mr. Akash Jaini and Mr. Pravir Singh, Advocates.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Ms. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocates for R-1/ED. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Vinay Yadav and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates for R-2/UoI. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms. Manyaa Chandok and Mr. Om Batra, Advocates for R-3/ANI. Ms. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Manish Sekhari, Mr. Swapnil Srivastava and Ms. Sanjana Srivastava, Advocates for R-14. Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Himanshu Sethi and Ms. Aishwarya Chabra, Advocates for R-20.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
