http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PRABHA DUTT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/11/1981

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SEN, A.P. (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR    6            1982 SCR  (1)1184  1982 SCC  (1)   1        1981 SCALE  (3)1757

ACT:      Constitution of  India-Article  19(I)(a)-Journalist  if has a  right to means of information-If could claim right to interview a prisoner sentenced to death.      Jail Manual-Rule 549(4) Journalist-If could claim to be friend of  society and  can claim  right of  interview  with condemned prisoner.

HEADNOTE:      The constitutional  right  to  freedom  of  speech  and expression   conferred    by   article   19(1)(a)   of   the Constitution, which includes the freedom of Press, is not an absolute right;  nor indeed  does it confer any right on the Press  to   have  an   unrestricted  access   to  means   of information. The  Press is  entitled to exercise its freedom of speech  and expression  by publishing a matter which does not invade  the rights  of other citizens and which does not violate the  sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. [1185 FG]      The right  claimed by  the petitioner  in  the  present case, a  newspaper reporter, to interview two convicts under sentence of  death is  not a right to express any particular view, or  opinion but  the right  to  means  of  information through the  medium of an interview with them. No such right can be  claimed by  the Press unless the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. [1185 H]      The existence  of a  free Press does not imply or spell out  any   legal  obligation   on  the  citizens  to  supply information to  the Press,  such as  there is  under section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [1186 A]      Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual provides that a prisoner under a  sentence of  death shall  be allowed interviews and other  communications  with  relatives,  friends  and  legal advisers, journalists and newspapermen, though not expressly referred to in this rule cannot be denied the opportunity of interview without  good reasons.  There  is  no  reason  why newspapermen who  could be  termed as friends of the society be denied the right of interview under rule 549(4). [1186 D- F]      There can  be no  doubt that  a person,  who desires to interview a  prisoner may have to subject himself or herself

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

to the  search in  accordance with the rules and regulations governing the interviews. [1187 A-B]      Whether representatives  of the Press should be allowed to be  present at  the time  of the  execution of  the death sentence is  a matter  for the Superintendent to consider on merits and  in accordance  with the  jail regulations. It is not a matter for the Court to decide. [1187 G] 1185

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1981.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      R. K. Garg and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.      Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. 1.      N. C.  Talukdar, K.S.  Gurumoorly and  R. N. Poddar for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.      P. N. Lekhi and K. C. Dua for the Applicants.      P. K. Bahardwaj in person for Times of India.      B. M. Srivastava for U.N.I.      V. S. Karnic for P.T.I.      The order of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  This is  a petition under article 32 of the  Constitution by  the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times, Smt.  Prabha Dutt,  asking for  a writ of mandamus or any  other  appropriate  writ  or  direction  directing  the respondents, particularly  the Delhi  Administration and the Superintendent of Jail, Tihar, to allow her to interview two convicts Billa  and Ranga who are under a sentence of death. We may  mention that  the aforesaid  two prisoners have been sentenced to  death for  an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code  and the petitions filed by them to the President of India  for commutation  of the  sentence are  reported to have been rejected by the President recently.      Before considering  the merits  of the  application, we would like  to observe  that  the  constitutional  right  to freedom  of  speech  and  expression  conferred  by  article 19(1)(a) of  the Constitution, which includes the freedom of the Press,  is not  an absolute  right, nor  indeed does  it confer any  right on  the Press,  to  have  an  unrestricted access to  means of  information. The  Press is  entitled to exercise its  freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter  which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which  does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the  security of the State, public order, decency and morality. But  in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is  not the  right to express any particular view or opinion but the right to means of information through the medium  of  an  interview  of  the  two  prisoners  who  are sentenced to  death. No  such right  can be  claimed by  the Press unless  in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is 1186 willing to  be interviewed.  The existence  of a  free Press does not  imply or  spell out  any legal  obligation on  the citizens to  supply  information  to  the  Press,  such  for example, as  there is  under section  161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. No data has been made available to us on the basis of  which it  would be possible for us to say that the two prisoners  are ready  and willing  to be interviewed. We have, however,  no data  either that they are not willing to be interviewed  and, indeed,  if it  were to appear that the prisoners themselves  do not  desire to  be interviewed,  it would have been impossible for us to pass an order directing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

that the  petitioner should  be allowed  to interview  them. While we  are on  this  aspect  of  the  matter,  we  cannot overlook that  the petitioner has been asking for permission to interview  the prisoners  right since  the  President  of India rejected  the petitions  filed by  the  prisoners  for commutation of  their sentence  to imprisonment for life. We are proceeding  on the  basis that the prisoners are willing to be interviewed.      Rule 549(4)  of the  Manual for the Superintendence and Management of  Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides that every  prisoner under  a sentence  of  death  shall  be allowed such  interviews and  other communications  with his relatives, friends  and legal advisers as the Superintendent thinks  reasonable.  Journalists  or  newspapermen  are  not expressly referred  to in  clause (4) but that does not mean that they  can always and without good reasons be denied the opportunity to  interview a  condemned prisoner.  If in  any given case, there are weighty reasons for doing so, which we expect will always be recorded in writing, the interview may appropriately be refused. But no such consideration has been pressed upon  us and  therefore we do not see any reason why newspapermen who  can broadly,  and we suppose without great fear of  contradiction, be  termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an interview under clause (4) of rule 549.      Rule 559A  also provides that all reasonable indulgence should be  allowed to  a condemned prisoner in the matter of interviews  with  relatives,  friends,  legal  advisers  and approved religious  ministers. Surprisingly,  but we  do not propose to  dwell on  that issue, this rule provides that no newspapers should  be allowed.  But it does not provide that no newspapermen will be allowed.      Mr.  Talukdar  who  appears  on  behalf  of  the  Delhi Administration contends that if we are disposed to allow the petitioner to interview the prisoners, the interviews can be permitted  only   subject  to   the  rules  and  regulations contained in the Jail Manual. There 1187 can be  no doubt  about this  position because, for example, rule 552A  provides for  a search of the person who wants to interview a prisoner. If it is thought necessary that such a search should  be taken, a person who desires to interview a prisoner may  have to  subject himself  or  herself  to  the search  in   accordance  with   the  rules  and  regulations governing the  interviews. There is a provision in the rules that if  a person  who desires  to interview a prisoner is a female, she  can be  searched only  by a  matron or a female warden.      Taking an overall view of the matter, we do not see any reason why the petitioner should not be allowed to interview the two convicts Billa and Ranga.      During the  course of  the hearing  of  this  petition, representatives of  the Times of India, India Today, PTI and UNI also  presented their  applications asking for a similar permission. What  we have said must hold good in their cases also and  they, in  our opinion,  should be  given the  same facility of interviewing the prisoners as we are disposed to give to the petitioner in the main writ petition.      We therefore  direct that  the  Superintendent  of  the Tihar Jail  shall allow  the aforesaid  persons, namely  the representatives of  the Hindustan Times, the Times of India, India Today, the Press Trust of India and the United News of India to  interview the  aforesaid  two  prisoners,  namely, Billa and  Ranga, today.  The interviews may be allowed at 4 O’Clock in  the evening. The representatives agree before us

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

that all  of them  will interview  the prisoners jointly and for not more than one hour on the whole.      There will be no order as to costs.      Mr. Lekhi  who appears  on behalf of the magazine India Today as  also  Mr.  Jain  who  appears  on  behalf  of  the Hindustan   Times   has   requested   us   to   direct   the Superintendent   of    Jail   to    allow   the    aforesaid representatives to  be present  at the time of the execution of the  death sentence.  That is  not a  matter  for  us  to decide. If such an application is made to the Superintendent of Jail,  he will be free to consider the same on merits and in accordance with the jail regulations. P.B.R. 1188