The Delhi High Court noted that, at first glance, the article does not seem to jeopardize the careers of the officers or endanger the lives of their family members.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to block a news article alleging the cessation of the Research and Analysis Wing’s (RAW) operations in North America. The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, emphasized that the article in question does not, prima facie, endanger the careers of officers or their family members’ lives.
The court’s decision came after the petitioner, Awasthi, argued for a directive to prevent media houses from publishing speculative reports on government officials or diplomats’ potential involvement with intelligence services abroad. However, the bench firmly rejected these contentions, stating,
“Freedom of press is placed at a very high pedestal. We cannot order it (article) to be removed like this.”
Highlighting the significance of journalistic freedom, the justices remarked on the non-compromising nature of the article, suggesting that it was the petitioner’s actions that risked exposing the identities of intelligence officials more than the publication itself.
“It is an innocuous piece. Leave it at that. It does not identify anyone. I think you [Awasthi] have identified more people than that. Your source is correct or not, we have no idea,”
-the bench noted, pointing out the baselessness of the petitioner’s concerns.
Moreover, the court recognized the Government of India’s authority to address any content potentially threatening national security, indicating that the government did not require the petitioner’s or the court’s advice on such matters. The judgment highlighted the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere in matters of national security reporting, especially when the government possesses adequate powers to manage these issues independently.
The dismissal of the PIL was grounded in the court’s view that the petition was based on “surmises and conjectures” and hearsay, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to not overstep into areas where the content does not evidently compromise national safety or the well-being of individuals involved.
In its concluding remarks, the court affirmed,
“Government of India has full power and authority to block any article which compromises national safety and security and it requires no advise of either the petitioner or this court… The Court should not easily transgress into this area. The impugned article, in the opinion of this court, prima facie, does not compromise the careers of the officers or puts the life of their family members in any danger.”
This ruling serves as a testament to the Indian judiciary’s respect for the freedom of the press, balancing it carefully with concerns for national security and individual safety. It reinforces the principle that the press plays a crucial role in a democratic society, and its freedom should not be curtailed without substantial evidence of harm or risk.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
