Chennai- The Madras High Court has observed that press freedom and privacy were allies and that the fear of surveillance is an assault on the press, which is the fourth pillar of democracy.
In a recent order, Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan made the observation and further said therefore, in the guise of investigation, seizing the petitioners’ (Reporters) mobile phones, forcing them to provide access to their personal and private data and asking them to reveal private and confidential information, was nothing but assaulting the press and oppress them with the fear of surveillance.
The judge was disposing of the petitions filed by Chennai Press Club and three reporters, seeking to restrain a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the police from harassing them under the guise of investigation into the Anna University sexual assault FIR leak case.
The judge said the source of information received or reported by the news agency falls under the purview of privileged communication in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act. Therefore, seizure of devices would result in disclosure of source of information, the judge added.
Extracting Section 15 (2) of the Press Council Act, the judge said even then, the investigation officer seized the cell phone from the petitioners that too without any information contained in their devices. The petitioners never uploaded the First Information Report (FIR) or forwarded it on the social media. Therefore, the investigation officer ought not to have seized the cell phone from the petitioners. It was a clear violation of Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act, the judge added.
The court said during the investigation, the SIT did not even enquire the author of the FIR and the persons who had uploaded it on the police’ official portal. Further they were not issued any summons and questionnaire as issued to the petitioners. It was very unfortunate to state that the police simply said that due to technical glitches, while registering the FIR, it was uploaded on the website.
Therefore, without even examining the person who had uploaded the FIR and the one who authored it, they enquired the petitioners.
Further, without any authorization of the author of the FIR, it could not have been uploaded on the official website, the judge added.
Citing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the judge said it was clear the FIR should have been uploaded in the police official web portal within 24 hours from registration. However, the FIRs should not have been uploaded in the case related to offences sensitive in nature such as sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism, and of that category and those under POCSO Act.
Therefore, uploading of the FIR relating to the sexual offences was a clear violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India. After uploading the FIR, the police personnel can say so many things that it happened due to technical glitches. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court constituted a SIT to investigate the issue of uploading of FIR related to the sexual offences.
Though the SIT has power to summon the petitioners for investigation purposes, the latter should not be harassed in any manner, the judge added.
The court directed the petitioners to appear for enquiry before the SIT as per the summons dated January 31 and co-operate in the investigation.
The judge told the SIT to complete the enquiry with the petitioners in all the petitions on or before February 10 as per the summons dated January 31, 2025 issued under Sections 179 & 94 of the BNSS.
The judge said the SIT shall return the petitioners’ mobile phone, devices etc., forthwith, which were seized from them during enquiry.
The police team shall not enquire about the petitioners’ personal details– their friends, relatives, kith and kin, their confidential sources among others.
The judge said the minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary and case diary. The SIT was restrained from harassing the petitioners in the guise of enquiry, the judge added.
The SIT shall not ask any irrelevant question in the guise of enquiry, the court added.
By
