Case Note & Summary
The case arose from writ petitions filed by various reporters of news channels and a criminal original petition seeking directions to restrain the Special Investigation Team (SIT) from harassing them in the guise of an enquiry connected to Crime No. 107 of 2024. The background involved the alleged sexual assault of a second-year engineering student at Anna University on 23.12.2024, which led to the registration of FIR in Crime No. 3 of 2024 for offences under Sections 63(a), 64(1), 75(i)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was uploaded on the Tamil Nadu police's CCTNS portal, revealing the victim's identity. This prompted public interest litigation, and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, by order dated 28.12.2024, constituted an all-women SIT to investigate both the sexual assault case and the FIR leak case (Crime No. 107 of 2024 under Section 72 BNS and Section 67A of the IT Act) and issued multiple directions. The State Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 27.01.2025 stayed certain portions, but the SIT continued its probe. The SIT issued summons to the petitioners, who are journalists, under Sections 179 and 94 BNSS, directing them to appear with their devices. The petitioners were summoned repeatedly on 29.01.2025, 31.01.2025, and 05.02.2025, and they alleged that the questioning was irrelevant, their mobile phones were seized without following due process, and they were threatened. They contended that they had no role in uploading the FIR; rather, it was the police who uploaded it. The petitioners argued that the SIT's actions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act, which protects journalistic sources. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 11 SCC 401, which underscored the need to protect journalistic sources. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, defended the investigation but did not justify the alleged harassment. The court analyzed that while the SIT was constituted to investigate serious offences, it could not act in a manner that harasses individuals, especially journalists who were not accused. The repeated summoning without specific reasons and the seizure of devices without adhering to the procedure under BNSS were found to be excessive. The court held that the right to privacy and freedom of press must be respected, and any investigation must follow due process. It directed that the SIT shall not summon the petitioners frequently without reason, and if device possession is required, procedure under BNSS must be followed. The SIT was allowed to proceed if material indicating the petitioners' involvement was found, and the principles from Manohar Lal Sharma were to be adhered to. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly with no costs.
Headnote
A) Constitution Law - Freedom of Press - Article 19(1)(a) Constitution of India - Journalists summoned repeatedly by SIT in cyber crime case - Petitioners, reporters, were not connected to uploading of FIR; FIR was uploaded by police on CCTNS portal - Held that SIT cannot harass journalists in the guise of investigation; frequent summoning and irrelevant questioning violates freedom of press (Paras 3-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation Powers - Sections 179 and 94 BNSS - Seizure of electronic devices - SIT seized mobile phones without following due process; direction given that if devices are required, procedure under BNSS must be followed and devices shall not be seized without proper justification (Paras 9-10). C) Evidence - Privilege of Journalists - Section 15(2) Press Council Act, Article 20(3) Constitution - Disclosure of sources - Petitioners argued they cannot be compelled to disclose sources; relying on Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 11 SCC 401, court reiterated that protection of journalistic sources is a basic condition for freedom of press; SIT cannot compel disclosure of sources without following law (Paras 8.4, 8.5, 10). D) Criminal Investigation - Cyber Crime - Section 72 BNS, Section 67A IT Act - Leaking of FIR in sensitive sexual offence case - The SIT was constituted to investigate the uploading of FIR revealing victim's identity; court directed SIT to pursue investigation but ensuring that reporters are not unnecessarily harassed; if material found, appropriate action can be taken (Paras 5, 7, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Investigation Team’s repeated summoning and seizure of devices of journalists without following due process amounts to harassment and is violative of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether journalists can be compelled to disclose their sources.
Final Decision
In view of the above, all these writ petitions stand disposed of with the following directions: (i) The third respondent / Special Investigation Team is directed not to summon the petitioners frequently without any specific reason, except following due process of law; (ii) If the possession of the devices is required, the third respondent shall follow the procedure as contemplated under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the devices shall not be seized without following due process; (iii) On perusal of the seized devises, if any material indicated for the involvement of the petitioners in the crime as alleged, the third respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law; (iv) If any material is indicated from the seized devises, the third respondent may call for further details from the respective petitioners and the petitioners shall co-operate for enquiry; (v) The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (11) SCC 401 shall be followed in respect of the petitioners. With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- freedom of speech and expression
- right to privacy
- right against self-incrimination
- protection of journalistic sources
- harassment by investigation agency
- due process under BNSS
- Article 19(1)(a)
- Article 20(3)
- Article 21
- Section 15(2) Press Council Act
- 1978
- Section 179 and 94 BNSS
- Section 72 BNS
- Section 67A IT Act
- Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India
