Supreme Court Allows Journalists to Interview Death Row Convicts — Upholds Right to Information. Court ruled that journalists can interview condemned prisoners under Jail Manual provisions, provided the prisoners consent.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a petition filed by Smt. Prabha Dutt, the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times, seeking permission to interview two convicts, Billa and Ranga, who were sentenced to death for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition arose after the President of India rejected the convicts' petitions for commutation of their sentences. The core legal issue was whether journalists have a right to interview condemned prisoners under the provisions of the Jail Manual. The court analyzed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, noting that while this right includes freedom of the Press, it is not absolute and does not guarantee unrestricted access to information. The court emphasized that the right to interview is contingent upon the willingness of the prisoners to be interviewed. The court also referenced Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual, which allows interviews with death row prisoners, stating that journalists could be considered friends of society and should not be denied the opportunity to interview unless there are valid reasons. The court ultimately directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow the representatives of several media organizations, including the Hindustan Times, to interview the convicts at a specified time. The court clarified that the decision regarding the presence of journalists during the execution of the death sentence was not within its purview and should be left to the Superintendent's discretion. No costs were awarded in the case.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Right to Interview Prisoners - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) - The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the Press, but it is not absolute and does not guarantee unrestricted access to information. The court held that the right claimed by the petitioner to interview death row convicts is contingent upon the prisoners' willingness to be interviewed (Paras 1185-1186).

B) Jail Regulations - Interviews with Condemned Prisoners - Jail Manual, Rule 549(4) - The rule allows interviews with prisoners under a sentence of death, and journalists can be considered friends of society entitled to such interviews unless there are valid reasons to deny them. The court directed that the Superintendent of Tihar Jail must allow interviews with the convicts (Paras 1186-1187).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether journalists have a right to interview prisoners sentenced to death under the Jail Manual.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow the representatives of various media organizations to interview the convicts at a specified time, emphasizing that such interviews should be conducted in accordance with jail regulations.

Law Points

  • freedom of speech
  • freedom of press
  • right to information
  • interview rights
  • Jail Manual provisions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1981 LawText (SC) (11) 4

Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1981

1981-11-07

Chandrachud, Y.V., Sen, A.P., Islam, Baharul

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

R. K. Garg, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Miss A. Subhashini, N. C. Talukdar, K.S. Gurumoorly, R. N. Poddar, P. N. Lekhi, K. C. Dua, P. K. Bahardwaj, B. M. Srivastava, V. S. Karnic

Prabha Dutt

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Remedy Sought

Permission to interview two death row convicts.

Filing Reason

Rejection of commutation petitions by the President of India.

Issues

Whether journalists have a right to interview death row prisoners The applicability of Jail Manual provisions regarding interviews

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued for the right to interview based on freedom of press The respondents contended that interviews are subject to jail regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to information, but it is not absolute and depends on the willingness of the interviewee. Journalists can be considered friends of society and should not be denied interviews with condemned prisoners unless valid reasons exist.

Judgment Excerpts

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. 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.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to allow interviews with death row convicts after their petitions for commutation were rejected.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 19(1)(a)
  • Indian Penal Code: Section 302
  • Criminal Procedure Code: Section 161(2)
  • Jail Manual: Rule 549(4), Rule 559A, Rule 552A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Petition Seeking Registration of HAMA Adoption and Issuance of NOC for Inter-Country Adoption. CARA Directed to Register Concluded HAMA Adoption Ex Post Facto and Process No-Objection Certificate Under Adoption Regulations 2...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Pension Parity for Retired Employees of KMF and District Milk Unions. The court held that the petition was not maintainable due to failure to implead necessary parties and lack of cause of actio...