The Delhi High Court refused to restrict media coverage of the Dwarka SUV crash, emphasising that freedom of the press cannot be curbed. It said no court can issue a complete gag order unless a genuine grievance is established.
The Delhi High Court declined to impose a restriction on media reporting regarding the Dwarka SUV crash case that resulted in the death of a 23-year-old man.
However, Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that the media must not disclose the identity of the minor involved in the case facing criminal charges.
This ruling came in response to a petition filed by the minor’s father, which sought to prevent news agencies and YouTubers from revealing the minor’s identity in both press coverage and social media.
Read Also: Pune Porsche Accident: Court Sends Father and Four Accused to Police Custody Until May 24
The Court stated,
“Under what statute can they be barred? Journalism, freedom of press cannot be curbed. There is no rule of law that states that it needs to be curbed. If there is a genuine grievance, yes. What you are asking is a complete gag order. A complete gag order cannot be given. There is no such order which can be passed by any court of law against any media channel. How can freedom of press be curtailed?”
After considering the arguments, the Court ruled that while the media could report on the case, they are not permitted to disclose the minor’s identity.
Additionally, the Court instructed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Press Council of India, the Press Trust of India, and their affiliates to refrain from disclosing any records about the minor concerning a character certificate or similar matters related to the FIR until the next hearing.
The incident involves a car crash on the night of February 3, where a 17-year-old minor allegedly drove an SUV at high speed, leading to a collision with a motorcycle that resulted in the death of the 23-year-old rider.
Advocate Lal Singh Thakur, representing the minor’s father, argued that news reports have revealed the minor’s personal information, and his family is being relentlessly pursued by the media. He contended that such media coverage violates the minor’s right to a free and fair trial as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He asserted,
“All media channels are showing my child’s face, reporting about his they are targeting police officers, they are talking about me and my family,”
The petition highlighted that “reckless reportage by the electronic media without accountability and without caring about the rights of the juvenile, fair and impartial trial cannot be read as right to freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the electronic media.”
It sought to prevent news outlets from releasing the minor’s name and photograph.
The petitioner’s counsel explained to the Court,
“I am looking for the security of my child,”
He further mentioned that the family has been receiving abusive calls, threats, and online harassment, causing the minor significant mental stress and reputational damage that affects his education.
The Court examined the petition’s validity, questioning,
“How is the petition maintainable? This is best covered under section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act. How is the gag order maintainable in a writ petition? None of your prayers would be maintainable. I can dismiss this right away. Why have you filed a criminal writ petition? What is the grievance?”
Upon recognizing the petition’s maintainability under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court issued notices to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Press Council of India, and the Press Trust of India. It also instructed the media not to identify the minor-accused.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on July 9.
Advocates Lal Singh Thakur, Kavya, Sudhir Tewatia, Naman, Lokesh Solanki, and Mehul Gulaty represented the minor’s father.
Case Title: Narender Kumar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors.