The petition avers that the class affected and for whom guidelines are being sought are the thousands of suspects who are named in investigation(s) but are later found to be innocent. The Supreme Court has termed the issue an important one, and directed the Union and state governments to file a reply within four weeks.
—
ON Tuesday, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta termed a public interest litigation seeking uniform guidelines for media interactions by police personnel in the context of the rights of the accused an important issue.
The Bench directed the Union government to file its reply within four weeks. It also directed state governments to file their replies within four weeks.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by a Saharanpur-based researcher, Praveen Kumar Parv. He was questioned by the Uttar Pradesh (UP) police’s anti-terrorism squad (ATS) in connection with a criminal case but was found to be clear of any involvement.
He claims he has become a victim of social prejudice and ostracism since his detention despite having been given a clean chit by the UP-ATS.
The petition avers that the class affected and for whom the guidelines are being sought are the thousands of suspects who are named in investigation(s) but are later found to be innocent.
This class includes the hundreds of thousands of undertrials who are doomed in the eyes of the society well before the conclusion of their trial and persons such as the petitioner himself, who are ‘picked up’ by the police or other investigating agencies on allegations of being involved in serious crimes such as terrorism or conspiracy against the nation but let go at the preliminary stage itself.
Calling the petition an important one, the Bench deemed the views of the Union government on the matter of utmost importance.
Explaining the seriousness of the case, the Bench gave the example of how criminals are paraded before the media by the police.
In his petition, filed through advocate-on-record Fuzail Ahmed Ayyubi, the petitioner contends that the manner in which the police interact with the media or public at large regarding ongoing investigations must take into account the human rights of the suspects or accused.
The principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be followed strictly, the petition contends.
The petitioner further argues that a duty is cast upon police forces to make public the fact— even if not accompanied by an apology— of a suspect having been proven innocent after an investigation.
This duty becomes more serious in sensational cases where the allegations relate to charges of terrorism, riot, communal disharmony, etc., in order to restore the image of a citizen in the eyes of the public and to prevent any possibility of social prejudice against the citizen, the petition asserts.
“Lack of any such clarification, naming of the accused in press briefings or otherwise in public, sharing of chargesheets in sensitive cases with the media to promote a particular version of the incident, are all, in the submission of the present petitioner, egregious and unparalleled violations of right to equality under Article 14 and right to liberty and dignity under Article 21,” the petition reads.
The petitioner has sought directions for the Union and state governments to issue appropriate guidelines to the police and other investigating agencies as follows:
- Refrain from disclosing the names and details of suspects at the preliminary stage of investigations or making public statements about their guilt.
- When a person questioned during the investigation is found to be clear of any wrongdoing, make an effort to restore the dignity of such a citizen.
Facts
The petitioner was questioned in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered by the Lucknow police under Sections 420, 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 against two individuals and an organisation based in New Delhi.
The allegations in the FIR pertained to the operation of what was dubbed in the media as an “illegal conversion racket” which had unlawfully converted more than 1,000 persons from one religion to another.
According to the petition, the FIR stated that the purported conversion racket was the brainchild of Pakistani intelligence agencies for unlawfully converting Indians, thereby promoting hatred against the nation by “changing the demography” of the country.
While the petitioner was still in the dark about the allegations of conspiracy against him, the police had publicised the details of the alleged conspiracy in the media.
The petitioner finally came to know that he was in the list of the alleged conspirators, purportedly having changed his name to Abdul Samad after the conversion.
From June 21–24, 2021, the ATS visited the petitioner’s residence several times, questioning him and making enquiries at and around his residence.
From June 25–29, 2021, the petitioner was questioned at the UP-ATS Headquarters in Lucknow and upon being satisfied that the petitioner had no possible involvement in the alleged crimes, the petitioner was dropped back at his home in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh by the UP-ATS itself on June 30, 2021.
But his reputation and social status were lost somewhere during the media trial and the ATS questioning, and he has been searching for them ever since.
