Arjun Jain vs News Broadcasting And Digital ... on 7 October, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Arjun Jain vs News Broadcasting And Digital ... on 7 October, 2021

1. The present petition has been filed by one Mr.Arjun Jain, who was an ex-Director in M/s Namascray Experience Pvt. Ltd, which had entered into an Onboard Entertainment Services Agreement on 11.08.2021 with the Operator i.e. Waterways Leisure Tourism Pvt. Ltd. to conduct and manage multiple shows for the purpose of onboard entertainment at the "Empress Cruise Ship" chartered by Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05 Cordelia Cruises.

2. Pursuant to a raid conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on the "Empress" ship on 02.10.2021, while it was still docked at the port in Mumbai, certain individuals were arrested for alleged commission of offences under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Soon after the raid started, the petitioner, who was present on the ship along with his father, de-boarded and flew back to Delhi. As several persons were arrested in this raid, various news articles in regard to the said incident started appearing on TV Channels and digital news platforms, including the channels run by respondent no.3 i.e. M/s TV Today Network Ltd.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he is neither a Director nor an Associate Director in M/s Namascray Experience Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as M/s Caneplus Trading Private Limited), the respondent no.3 has broadcasted and published news on its channels and digital platforms, purportedly showing that the petitioner, being an Associate Director of M/s Namascray Experience Pvt. Ltd, was the mastermind who organized the event which was raided by the NCB on 02.10.2021. According to the petitioner, he has been projected by the respondent no.3 as having previous criminal antecedents. It is the petitioner‟s claim that the said reportage, by way of which direct and indirect innuendos are placed against the petitioner by linking him to the alleged seizures of drugs, not only directly impinges on his right to privacy but also has the potential to prejudice the minds of the investigating agency.

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has already made a complaint to the redressal officer of the respondent no.3 on 04.10.2021, it has not received any response thereto. Furthermore, since the guidelines and rules issued by respondent nos.1 and 2 do not have any mechanism to take quick and effective steps to immediately curb the publishing of such news articles, he has been compelled to approach this Court seeking directions to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to regulate the reportage of criminal investigation and trials and create an emergency efficacious grievance redressal system in this regard. In support of his plea, he relies on a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Nilesh Navalakha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2021 SCC Online Bom 56]. He, therefore, prays that respondent no.3 be directed to forthwith remove all links and reportage in relation to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Nisha Bhambhani, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/ News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority, who appears on advance notice submits that effective guidelines, by way of News Broadcasting Standards Regulation and the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards etc., encompassing a wide range of principles to self-regulate news broadcasting are already in place. These guidelines specifically provide the manner in which coverage of investigation should be undertaken to ensure that news reporting is done responsibly, without being sensationalised.

7. The learned ASG, appearing for the respondent no.2, also joins Ms. Bhambhani in submitting that the said respondent has also already framed rules to ensure that not only is reporting done in a responsible Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05 manner but to also ensure that no prejudice is caused to the citizens in respect of any ongoing investigation against them.

8. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and has tried to project that he was never on the board of directors of M/s Namascray Experience Pvt. Ltd; whereas the fact is that he had resigned as a Director from the said company only on 24.08.2021. He further submits that the petitioner‟s self-professed claim that he does not have any criminal antecedents is belied by the fact that he was arrested, as recently as on 07.08.2021, and was only released after two days, upon finding that he had settled the matter with the complainant. He further submits that the reporting done by the respondent no.3 is not only based on existing facts, which the petitioner has conveniently failed to disclose, but is also based on reliable information received by it from authentic sources.

9. Having considered the submissions of the parties, even though I prima facie find merit in respondent no.3‟s plea that the petitioner has concealed certain vital facts by inter alia not disclosing that he was a Director in M/s Namascray Experience Pvt. Ltd till as late as on 24.08.2021, I am of the view that while the petitioner may not be entitled to any interim relief at this stage, the issues raised in the present petition deserve to be considered by this Court in greater depth after examining the guidelines, which the respondent nos.1 & 2 claim already hold the field. Accordingly, while issuing notice in the petition, the application for interim relief is rejected. Learned counsel Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05 for the respondents accept notice. They pray for and are granted four weeks‟ time to file their respective counter-affidavits. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

10.However, there is no gainsaying that respondent no.3 and all other media houses ought to exercise restraint while reporting on matters which are still under investigation by any statutory authority, so that no unnecessary prejudice is caused. In this regard, reference may be made to the directions issued by the High Court of Bombay in Para 355 of its decision in Nilesh Navalakha & Ors.(supra). For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced hereinbelow: -

"355. Having given our anxious consideration to all aspects of the matter, we are inclined to the opinion that the press/media ought to avoid/regulate certain reports/discussions/debates/interviews in respect of and/or touching upon any on-going inquiry/investigation into a criminal offence and that only those items are presented for reading/viewing and otherwise perceiving through the senses which are merely informative but in public interest instead of what, according to the media, the public is interested in. No report/discussion/debate/interview should be presented by the press/media which could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case or any such person who may be relevant for any investigation, with a view to satiate the thirst of stealing a march over competitors in the field of reporting. Accordingly, we direct the press/media to exercise restraint and refrain from printing/displaying any news item and/or initiating any discussion/debate/interview of the nature, as indicated hereunder:

a. In relation to death by suicide, depicting the deceased as one having a weak character or intruding in any manner on the privacy of the deceased;

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05

                                  b.       That     causes      prejudice   to   an      ongoing
                                 inquiry/investigation by:

(i) Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;

(ii) Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;

(iii) Analyzing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;

(iv) Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;

(v) Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;

(vi) Criticizing the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;

(vii) Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-

judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;

(viii) Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;

(ix) Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and

(x) Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency; c. Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the CTVN Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and d. Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation."

11.The respondent no.3 is, therefore, expected to act in a responsible manner and is directed to strictly follow the directions issued by the Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05 High Court of Bombay in Nilesh Navalakha & Ors (supra) as also ensure that the telecasts/broadcasts made by it are from authenticated sources and the disseminated content is in strict compliance with the existing regulatory guidelines issued by respondent nos. 1 & 2.

12.Needless to state that the undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondent no.3 on 06.10.2021 will no longer bind the said respondent.

13.List on 31.01.2022.

REKHA PALLI, J OCTOBER 7, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:08.10.2021 17:35:05

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders