http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE THROUGH SUPDTT, CENTRAL JAIL,N.DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARULATA JOSHI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/04/1999

BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

PATTANAIK.J.

       Competing  rights,  namely,  right   of   press   to interview  a  prisoner in jail and right of jail authorities prohibiting such interview arise for  consideration  in  the present appeal.    One Babloo Srivastava, who is in judicial custody and is being tried for  offence  under  Section  302 read with  Section  120B had been lodged in Tihar Jail.  The news magazine ’India Today’ moved an application before  the Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi  seeking  permission  to interview the under-trial prisoner in  jail.    The  learned Sessions  Judge  by  his  order  dated  6.11.95  granted the permission sought for.  Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid order  the  prosecuting  agency  moved  the  High  Court  in Revision.  By the impugned order dated 1st  May,  1996,  the High  Court  did not interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting permission but modified the same  by issuing the following directions:-

       "However,   it   is   made  clear  that  the         interview   and/or   photographs  of  Babloo         Srivastava  would  be  taken  only   if   he         expressed his willingness and not otherwise.         If  given,  the  respondent  newsmagazine is         expected to publish  the  interview  with  a         sense  of  propriety and balance and without         offending the law of contempt of  Courts  or         impairing the administration of justice."

The aforesaid order is being challenged in this appeal.  The learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  strenuously argued  that  the  learned  Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the permission  in  question  and  the order  itself  indicates that the learned Sessions Judge had passed the order mechanically without application  of  mind. He  had  also  contended  that  though  the  High  Court had modified  the  said  order  yet  the  right  of   the   Jail authorities  to  deny  interview  for  good reasons has been conceded by this Court in Smt.  Prabha Dutt.  Vs.  Union  of India  and  others  -  (1982)  1  Supreme Court Cases 1, and therefore, the High Court was not justified in  issuing  the impugned order.   The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that there is no provisions in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Jail   Manual   prohibiting  interviews  of  the  undertrial prisoners.  In the absence of such prohibition the Right  of Press  as  engrafted in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be cutrailed though  the  learned  counsel  urged  that  while   granting permission  the  Court  may put such conditions as it thinks fit in the interest  of  administration  of  justice.    The learned Sessions Judge, and therefore, there is no infirmity with  the  order  of  the  High Court so as to be interfered with.

       As the outset we take up  the  issue  regarding  the authority   of   the  learned  Sessions  Judge  in  granting permission.  As it appears, the accused  is  an  under-trial prisoner and the case is pending in the Court of the learned Additional  Sessions  Judge  who  had  granted  the order of permission.  The trial of the accused being  pending  before the  Additional Sessions Judge it cannot be said that he had no authority to issue permission to the Press  to  interview the under trial inside the jail.  We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant appearing in this Court.

       Coming to the second limb of the  objections  raised by  the  learned  counsel appearing for the appellant, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition  that  the  order granting permission to the Press to interview an under-trial cannot  be  passed mechanically without application of mind. In as mush as the Court granting  permission  will  have  to weigh  the  competing  interest between the right of a Press and the right of the Authorities prohibiting such  interview in the  interest  of  administration of justice.  The Court, therefore,  before  disposing  of  an  application   seeking permission  to  interview an under-trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can  be  any justifiable  and  weighty  reasons  denying such interviews. The  Court  also  should  try  to  find  out   whether   any restrictions  or  prohibitions  are  contained  in  the Jail Manual.  The so called permission granted by the Court would be subject to the relevant Rules and  Regulations  contained in  the  Jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities of fthe under-trial prisoners.    In  Smt.    Prabha’s  case (supra)  this  Court  had  observed  that the Constitutional Right to Freedom  of  Speech  and  Expression  conferred  by Article  19(1)(a)  of  the  Contitution  which  includes the Freedom of Press is not  an  absolute  right  and  does  not 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. The Court also in the aforesaid case expressed  the  opinion that  the  Press  must  first  obtain the willingness of the person sought to be interviewed and no Court  can  pass  any order   if  the  person  to  be  interviewed  expresses  his unwillingness.  It  was  also  indicated  in  the  aforesaid judgment  that  the  so-called  right  of the Press which it obtains on the basis of a permisison from the Court would be subject to the prohibitions of the Jail Manual.

       In Sheela Barse Vs.  State of Maharashtra  (1987)  4 Supreme  Court  Cases  373,  this  Court also considered the Right of Press under Article  19(1)(a),  the  Right  of  the Prisoners under Article 21 and reasonable restrictions which can be  put  on  such interviews.  It was also observed that

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

the  interviews  of  fthe  prisoners  become  necessary   as otherwise  the  correct information may not be collected but such access has to  be  controlled  and  regulated  and  the Pressmen are not entitled to uncontrolled interview.  It was also  stated  that  those  who  receive  permission  to have interviews  will  have  to  agree  to  abide  by  reasonable restrictions as contained in the Jail Manual, and therefore, permission  granted  by  thhe  Court  wpi;d  ne  sibject  to provisions contained in the Jail Manual itself.

       Bearing  in  mind  the  ratio  in  the aforesaid two judgments of this Court if  we  examine  the  order  of  the learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  it can be said without hesitation that the said learned Additional  Sessions  Judge disposed  of the application seeking permission to interview by passing a blanket order without  applying  his  mind  and without even knowing the mind of the authorities and without bearing  in  mind  the  law  laid  down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions.  No Court would pass such a blanket order mechanically without applying its mind to the relevant factors, as the Press does not have an unfettered  right  to interview an  under trial prisoner in jail.  When we examine the impugned order of the High Court we find that  the  High Court  did  bear  in  mind  the  ratio  of the aforesaid two decisions of  this  Court  and,  therefore,  while  granting permission   to   interview  the  under-trial  prisoners  it modified the blanket order passed by  the  learned  Sessions Judge  putting such restrictions and conditions as contained in the impugned order.  No grievance, therefore, can be made to the impugned order of the High Court.  But after  hearing the  learned  counsel  for  the parties we may add a further condition that the interview which the Press would take will be regulated by the provisions contained in Jail Manuals and therefore, the Jail Authorities can  modulate  the  same  in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Manual. In  the  Course of hearing it was pointed out to us that the said under-trial prisoner is no longer in Tihar Jail and  we do  not  know  whether  the  News  Magazine still intends to interview the said under-trial prisoner.  In the  event  the Magazine still intends to interview the under-trial prisoner then he must approach the appropriate Jail Authorities where the  said  under-trial  prisoner  has  been lodged and those Authorities will bear in mind the conditions put by the High Court and the observations  made  by  us  in  this  judgment before allowing the interview in question.

       This  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  aforesaid directions and observations.