Updated: September 4, 2020 2:07:14 am
The PIL, filed Monday through Crawford Bayley & Company, lead attorney Milind Sathe and attorney Chetan Kapadi, requested an urgent court hearing. (File photo)
The Mumbai High Court said Thursday that it hoped the media would exercise restraint in reporting on the investigation into the death case of Sushant Singh Rajput so that the investigation would not be hampered.
A division bench of Judge AA Sayed and Judge SP Tavade was hearing two public interest litigation (PIL), including one submitted by eight former senior Maharashtra police officers, seeking restraining orders against the “media trial” in the case.
After hearing the submissions, the court issued notices to respondents, saying that in the meantime, it hoped that media channels would practice restraint in reporting on the actor’s death and not hamper the investigation in any way.
“We only hope and urge the media to exercise restraint in reporting the investigation regarding the case, which would in any way hamper or harm the ongoing investigation carried out by CBI as ordered by the SC,” he said .
Additional Attorney General Anil Singh, who appeared for the Union government, said the court should not approve such an order without listening to the channels and that it would have greater implications. He made time to respond to requests.
With no media channels appearing in court on Thursday, the HC said it would listen to representatives of the television channels and CBI before deciding on the reparations requested in the PILs and published the matter for its hearing on September 10.
The petitioners in one of the PILs – filed Monday and requesting an urgent hearing – included former DGPs PS Pasricha, K Subramaniam, D Sivanandan, Sanjeev Dayal, and Satish Chandra Mathur; former Mumbai Police Commissioners Mahesh N Singh and Dhananjay N Jadhav, as well as former Head of the Anti-Terror Squad (ATS), KP Raghuvanshi.
Editorial | At Sushant Singh’s primetime circus, everyone is charged in due process murder
Respondents cited in the petition are the Union government, the Press Council of India, the Association of News Broadcasters, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority and the government of Maharashtra.
The PIL filed through Crawford Bayley & Company, represented by lead counsel Milind Sathe and defense counsel Chetan Kapadia, said that a section of television channels was “trying to influence the course of the investigation” of the case by the central agencies “through biased reporting and false propaganda.” “This has created an air of suspicion in the minds of the general public about the facts of the case under investigation and also about the Mumbai Police, health services and other services. support from the state, “he added.
He also said that “the presenters of some television channels have been carrying out a 24 × 7 vituperative campaign against the Mumbai police and their commissioner, the DCP of the area and other agents, attacking them by name in the most inappropriate way” .
The PIL requested various instructions from the defendant authorities to issue guidelines to the media to refrain from publishing and circulating false, disparaging and scandalous comments, social media posts, news that would allegedly endanger the reputation of the policeman.
Milind Sathe argued that the TV news channel reporting was a complete attempt to influence the neutral investigation and the petitioners have no opinion on it and are only concerned about the smear of the Mumbai police image.
“That information (amounts to) hatred and defamation from the Mumbai police. The electronic media coverage is a parallel investigation and some channels call the Mumbai police co-conspirators. The way the reports are being carried out, they have practically taken over the investigation, “he added.
The other PIL that the court was hearing was presented by activists Nilesh Navlakha, Mahibub D Shaikh and Subhash Chander Chaba, through lead attorney Devadatt Kamat and attorney Rajesh Inamdar. He claimed that the nature of the television channels’ reports was one of “sensationalism” and was adversely affecting the ongoing CBI investigation into the case.
The respondents cited in this petition are the Union government, the Press Council of India, the Association of News Broadcasters, CBI, the Maharashtra government, India Today Group, Times now, Republic TV, NDTV Ltd, News 18 and Zee News.
Kamat presented: “We are all in favor of freedom of the press. It is the fourth state. This country will survive only if there are vibrant media, but the media have certain responsibilities, which if violated will destroy the administration of justice. The channels even broadcast photos of Sushant Singh Rajput’s corpse from his room. This is totally against journalistic ethics and the codes related to media reports issued by the Center. “
The PIL requested that the program code be scrupulously followed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay up to date with the latest headlines
For the latest news from Mumbai, download the Indian Express app.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
