The Patna High Court ruled that media can report criminal proceedings but should avoid labels like “mastermind” or “kingpin” that suggest guilt before trial. Justice Ansul said prejudicial reporting may harm an accused’s reputation and amount to defamatory or improper conduct during pending cases.
The Patna High Court has observed that while the media has the constitutional freedom to report developments in criminal cases, news organisations must avoid using terms that portray an accused person as guilty before a court has reached a final conclusion.
The Court held that expressions such as “mastermind”, “scamster”, “kingpin” or similar labels should not be used while reporting allegations against an accused, as such descriptions may create an impression of guilt even before the completion of the judicial process.
Justice Ansul made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Rishu Shree, who approached the High Court seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in an alleged tender scam matter.
In its order dated June 24, the High Court highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between freedom of the press and the fundamental right of an accused to receive a fair trial. The Court noted that excessive or one-sided media coverage can damage a person’s reputation and influence public perception even before evidence is tested in court.
The Court observed:
“Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act. This is pre-judging the issue when the matter is subjudice,”
The Court emphasised that a person facing allegations remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty through the judicial process.
The matter originated from an FIR registered by the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit on April 30, 2025, in relation to allegations of irregularities in a tender-related matter. According to Shree, although the FIR was registered in 2025, investigative action against him, including a search of his residence, took place only on May 27, 2026, when he was arrested. He challenged the criminal proceedings before the High Court, arguing that the allegations against him had been amplified through extensive media coverage, which had already portrayed him as guilty.
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for Shree, submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered during the search conducted at his residence. However, she argued that television channels, newspapers, digital news platforms and social media accounts carried reports that projected Shree as responsible for the alleged offences.
It was further argued that prime-time debates had publicly criticised him even before the trial began, creating a situation where public opinion could influence witnesses and undermine the fairness of proceedings. The petitioner claimed that such coverage amounted to a “media trial” and violated his right to a fair hearing.
During the proceedings, the High Court reviewed several news reports placed before it. The reports included references to investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), searches connected to the alleged tender scam and allegations that Shree had created a network to obtain government contracts through commissions. The Court noted that similar narratives had spread widely across social media platforms, resulting in Shree being treated as guilty before the evidence was examined by a court.
The Court reiterated that freedom of speech and expression granted to the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is an important democratic right. However, the Court pointed out that this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it affects other constitutional protections such as the right to reputation and a fair trial.
The Court referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions, including:
- State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi
- MP Lohia v State of West Bengal
- Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v SEBI
These judgments have dealt with concerns surrounding media trials and the impact of public commentary on pending judicial proceedings. The Court observed that the media plays an important role in a democracy but must exercise responsibility while reporting ongoing criminal investigations.
The High Court clarified that it was not seeking to restrict legitimate journalism or prevent reporting of criminal proceedings. It refused to impose a blanket ban on media coverage but warned against irresponsible reporting that assigns guilt before trial.
The Court stated:
“Having seen both sides of the coin, this court is clearly not in a view of media gag over the issue. However, the court would certainly direct for control over irresponsible reporting and imputation of guilt upon the petitioner without any initiation trial at all,”
The Court also recorded that the Enforcement Directorate’s counsel had expressed concern over the increasing trend of media trials.
The Court permitted media organisations to continue reporting factual developments and court proceedings but directed them to avoid content that prejudices the accused.
The Court specifically prohibited:
- Describing Shree as guilty of the alleged offences.
- Presenting him as having committed the alleged crimes.
- Publishing material that determines criminal liability before trial.
- Using terms such as “mastermind”, “scamster”, “kingpin” or similar expressions suggesting guilt.
- Conducting debates or reports based on alleged confessions, investigation material or documents whose evidentiary value has not yet been examined.
Read Also: Supreme Court Addresses Media Trials, Calls for New Police Briefing Manual
At the same time, the Court clarified:
“However, nothing in this order shall prevent fair, accurate and objective reporting of the proceedings pending before the court or publication of the facts,”
Apart from addressing the media reporting issue, the High Court also questioned the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit regarding the delay between registration of the FIR and the search conducted at Shree’s residence.
The Court directed the SVU to explain the reason behind the one-year gap. The Enforcement Directorate has also been asked to file its counter affidavit.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 10.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Nandita Rao along with Advocates Arshadeep Singh Khurana, Kumaresh Singh, Ujjwal Raj, Shruti, Anirvan Choudhary, Jyoti Prakash and Sahil Kumar.
Advocate Arvind Kumar appeared for the Special Vigilance Unit, while Special Counsel Zohaib Hossain represented the Enforcement Directorate along with Advocates Prabhat Kumar Singh, Pranjal Tripathi, Vishal Kuma and Utsav.
Case Title: Rishu Shree v State of Bihar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE