( 2025 LHC 5858 ) (Writ Petition No. 80758/2023 )

while the media is vested with legal and constitutional rights to report accurately on pending criminal trials and ongoing investigations, this freedom is not absolute. It does not extend to false, misleading, defamatory, or unprofessional reporting that compromises the right to a fair trial or violates the dignity, reputation, or privacy of the accused or the victim. Such conduct lies beyond the ambit of the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and may give rise to legal consequences. 11. The term “under custody accused” generally refers to an individual who has been formally detained or arrested by a law enforcement agency and is under their control, through physical confinement and legal restraint. However, for the purpose of the present case, this term is to be stretched to also include individuals who are temporarily halted or stopped at the roadside by law enforcement personnel, such as during routine security checks, verification of documents, or random inspections. Even if such individuals have not been formally arrested, the mere restraint on their liberty and subjection to official authority brings them within the protective ambit of the law, aimed at safeguarding their dignity, privacy, and integrity. 12. In light of the above discussion, the Court finds it necessary to issue clear directions to all relevant authorities to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. This includes preserving the dignity of individuals, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, safeguarding against self-incrimination, and preventing any form of media trial that could influence or prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. The following directions are intended to reinforce adherence to constitutional mandates and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

1. No law enforcement agency shall permit or facilitate media interviews, especially involving confessional statements of an under-custody accused, as such exposure gravely tarnishes and compromises their dignity, self-respect, and future course of life. It constitutes a clear violation of fundamental rights and invites unwarranted public prejudice, declining the very essence of fair trial and due process.
2. Any violation in this regard shall constitute misconduct, and the officer found responsible shall be proceeded against in accordance with the relevant law. The heads of investigating agencies shall bear responsibility for ensuring strict compliance and shall not disregard or condone any act of misconduct committed by their subordinates.
3.  It is high time that the role of media be effectively regulated by the competent regulatory authorities to ensure that its unchecked conduct neither transgresses the limits of law nor encroaches upon the fundamental rights, dignity, and liberties of citizens.
4. The humiliation of citizens at pickets and checkpoints established by law enforcement agencies, through their exposure to the media for showcasing performance, stands strongly deprecated. Although law enforcement agencies remain empowered to take action against individuals found involved in violation of the law, any attempt to secure media attention at the cost of the dignity, respect, or privacy of citizens shall not be permitted.