TV Channel debates on Criminal Trial issues amount to direct interference in criminal justice administration: SC

The Supreme Court stated that debates or discussions on television channels about subjects that are within the purview of criminal courts amounted to direct interference in the administration of criminal justice.

In a criminal appeal, a bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and P S Narasimha stated that all matters connected to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not by a TV channel.

The two - judge bench considered criminal appeals from four defendants who had been found guilty under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (Robbery).

The bench pointed out that the Trial Court's judgement was based on a DVD that was played in court. It was about a statement to a police officer that resembles a confession. The court also noted that the stated utterances on DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency were produced and broadcasted on Udaya TV's "Putta Mutta" programme. The bench made the following observations in this context: 

Allowing said DVD to end up in the hands of a private TV channel in order for it to be broadcast and published in a programme is nothing more than a dereliction of duty and a direct interference with the administration of justice. All matters relating to the crime, including whether or not anything is a conclusive piece of evidence, must be decided by a Court of Law, not by a television station. If a voluntary statement was made, the subject would be decided by a court of law. The public square is not the place for such an argument or proof of what is otherwise the only province and function of courts of law.

Similarly, on Tuesday, the Kerala High Court issued an interim ex-parte gag order against Malayalam news channel Reporter TV, prohibiting it from publishing/broadcasting/telecasting any item concerning or relating to actor Dileep's brother in law, Suraj, while reporting about the murder conspiracy case or the 2017 actor sexual assault case.