On Thursday (30th May),The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking action against media for revealing the identity of AAP MP Swati Maliwal, linked to an alleged assault by Arvind Kejriwal’s aide. The court criticized the petition, deeming it politically motivated and lacking genuine concern for the victim’s privacy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Thursday (30th May), The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought action against media houses for disclosing the identity of AAP Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Swati Maliwal. The case was linked to an alleged assault on Maliwal by Arvind Kejriwal’s aide, Bibhav Kumar.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the petition filed by advocate Sanser Pal Singh. The court strongly criticized the petition, indicating that it had a political motive and lacked genuine concern for the victim’s privacy.
“The individual affected is addressing the issue by appearing on multiple channels and speaking about it.”
-the Court remarked, highlighting that Maliwal herself had openly discussed the matter with the media.
The judges admonished the petitioner, asserting that the PIL was filed with a politically colored perspective and for personal publicity rather than for a legitimate cause.
The court stated-
“It’s evident that your perspective is biased and distorted. You’re neglecting the issue of victim shaming entirely. This petition seems to be politically motivated, with a clear intention of seeking publicity. I urge the Bar Association to reflect on the actions of its members. What’s happening today is not fair.”
The court also issued a stern warning to the petitioner, suggesting that disciplinary action might be necessary.
“You, as a legal professional, are expected to consider all viewpoints. We may need to lodge a complaint against you with the bar council.”
– the Court said.
Faced with these severe rebukes, Singh chose to withdraw the plea. In his petition, Singh expressed astonishment at the fact that the first information report (FIR) registered in Maliwal’s case was being widely circulated through news channels and social media platforms. He sought directives for media houses to stop telecasting or posting Maliwal’s name and identity, and also requested broader measures to prevent the disclosure of identities in other cases involving sexual offenses or violence.
The court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between the right to privacy of individuals involved in legal cases and the public’s right to information. It also brings to light the judiciary’s stance on the misuse of PILs for political or personal gains. By rejecting the petition and pointing out its political undertones, the court has reinforced the need for legal practitioners to approach such matters with integrity and without ulterior motives.