Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Sikkim High Court: In a petition seeking to restrain and remove media reports during the pendency of the investigation, alleging media trial, the Single Judge Bench of Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., held that simply reporting the factum of registration of an FIR and the contents thereof does not amount to a media trial; right to privacy no longer subsists, when the case becomes a legitimate subject to comment on by the press and media; reportages become unobjectionable when based on public records.
Background
The present writ petition arose from the FIR registered against the petitioner under the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Sikkim Chronicle published a report on the same. According to the said report, it was based on the Police Daily Situation Report.
The petitioner raised the issue of privacy and filed the present petition, impugning the alleged action of the State Police in disclosing the petitioner’s name and the contents of the FIR to Sikkim Chronicle. The petition alleged that the Sikkim Chronicle had resorted to a media trial.
The petitioner sought directions restraining the State respondents from disclosing investigative material to the media or any third party during the pendency of the investigation. He also sought directions to the Sikkim Chronicle to remove publications relating to the FIR naming him and his minor son, and to restrain further prejudicial or accusatory reporting during the pendency of the investigation and trial. Further, he sought an inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of investigative material, along with protection of the privacy of his minor child and a restraint on any further disclosure identifying the minor.
Issues
-
Whether public disclosure or publication of the contents of an FIR is permissible in law.
-
Whether publication or reporting of criminal proceedings, including disclosure of the identity of the victim, witness, or complainant, is legally impermissible.
-
Whether reporting on ongoing criminal proceedings amounts to a “media trial” so as to warrant judicial interference.
Analysis
1. Publication of FIR contents in news reports
At the outset, the Court prima facie noted that the impugned news report did disclose the contents of the FIR. The petitioner relied upon the Youth Bar Assn. of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473; however, the Court noted that the directions of the Supreme Court in the said judgment require that FIRs be uploaded on the police or Government website. The Court observed that in cases involving sensitive offences, the decision whether to upload is to be taken by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or an equivalent authority. However, the Supreme Court had not directed that the names of the accused or the contents of the FIR be withheld from disclosure; rather, it has mandated prompt uploading of the FIR in the public domain.
The petitioner further alleged that the news agency resorted to a media trial. The Court at the threshold stated that simply reporting the factum of registration of an FIR against the accused and the contents thereof does not amount to a media trial.
2. Right to privacy of the accused
The Court conceded that an accused or aggrieved person may approach the writ court if a publication threatens their right to a fair trial under Article 21. Such a person may seek postponement of the publication or reporting of certain aspects of the proceedings, including the identity of the victim, witness, or complainant. However, such relief must be granted on a case-specific basis, and the facts of the present writ petition did not justify such intervention.
3. Privacy of minors
The Court noted that the disclosure of the name of the petitioner’s son in the subsequent report published by Sikkim Chronicle was also challenged and recognised that the identity of a minor should be protected.
The Court stated that a perusal of the said report containing the petitioner’s minor son’s name was based on a voluntary communication sent by him, which was reproduced verbatim in the published report at his request to present his version.
4. Media reporting does not always equal a media trial
The Court reiterated that the press, as the fourth pillar of democracy, is entitled to report on criminal proceedings, and that fair and accurate reporting of an FIR, without disclosing the victim’s identity or pre-judging the allegations, does not amount to a “media trial”.
Referring to Article 19(1)(a), the Court observed that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the press, subject to reasonable restrictions. However, in the present case, no such restriction was warranted. The Court stated that the reportage, which included both the FIR contents and the version of the accused’s son, was fair and well within their rights and duties. The Court held that if the press and the media are doing their duty fairly and accurately, the courts should restrain itself from dragging them into court on the mere asking.
5. FIR is a public document
The Court referred to Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (2023) 13 SCC 563, and noted that the Supreme Court had held an FIR to be a public document under Section 74, Evidence Act, 1872, and thus capable of being accessed by persons entitled to inspect such records.
The Court also referred to R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632, on the right to privacy. Wherein the Supreme Court stated that publication based on public records, including court records, is permissible, as the right to privacy does not subsist in such matters, subject to exceptions such as protection of the identity of victims of sexual offences.
Decision
Accordingly, the publication by the Sikkim Chronicle in the impugned reportages becomes unobjectionable as it was based upon the FIR, which is a public record. As the right to privacy no longer subsists, when the case becomes a legitimate subject to comment on by the press and media, among others. However, it does not legitimise media trials.
The Court dismissed the writ petition.
[Rabden Sherpa v. State of Sikkim, W.P. (C) No. 07 of 2026, decided on 7-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Abhinav Kant Jha, Advocate
For the respondents: S.K. Chettri, Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3
