The SC Today (March 7th) declined to consider the ED’s petition challenging a Calcutta HC directive. The directive outlined guidelines for investigative agencies, advising against disclosing details of probes involving individuals like Rujira Banerjee-wife of Abhishek Banerjee, before filing chargesheets, to either the public or the media.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today chose not to entertain a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which contested a Calcutta High Court directive. The High Court had established specific guidelines for investigative agencies, emphasizing the non-disclosure of probe details to the public or media before the filing of a chargesheet, particularly in relation to Rujira Banerjee, the wife of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee.
The genesis of the High Court’s order was a plea by Rujira Banerjee, who accused central investigative agencies and media outlets of tarnishing her reputation and that of her family. She alleged that there was a concerted effort to malign her through the dissemination of information regarding ongoing investigations into alleged financial irregularities and other misdemeanors, implicating her and involving the ED among others.
During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra addressed Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED. They clarified that the agency’s grievance stemmed from an interim order of the high court, and hence, the apex court was disinclined to intervene.
Raju argued that the interim order effectively amounted to a final decision as it laid down specific guidelines and provided immediate relief to Banerjee. He requested a stay on these guidelines. However, faced with the choice between dismissal of the plea and withdrawal, Raju opted for the latter, a move sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
The bench told Raju that the court would either dismiss the ED’s plea or the agency can withdraw it as it is against an interim order of the high court. Raju then agreed to withdraw the plea, a request that was allowed by the court. On October 17 last year, the high court issued a slew of guidelines and directed the probe agencies and media outlets to strictly adhere to those.
It had said insofar as Banerjee is concerned,
”the investigating agencies (in the present case, the ED) shall not disclose to the public or the media the circumstances, reasons and/or details of the interrogation, raids and search of any particular person, be he/she an accused, a suspect or a witness”.
It had said investigating agencies in general, and the ED in particular, will not involve or be accompanied by mediapersons during any raid or interrogation, search-and-seizure procedure at any point of time and also not disclose prior information of such raids, interrogations, searches and seizures.
The high court had said the media, while reporting news items, will ensure that the information disseminated is objective, accurate and can be corroborated by concrete materials and sources.
”The exact source may or may not be disclosed in the news item but the editors/board of editors/management of the particular media entity must be able to corroborate it by cogent material, if so required by any court of law or investigating agency or other body authorised to do so in law, including self-regulating authorities in respect of the media,”
-the high court had said.
The contentious guidelines were issued by the Calcutta High Court on October 17 of the previous year. They mandated that investigative bodies, specifically the ED in this context, refrain from revealing to the public or media any details concerning the interrogation, raids, and search operations involving any individual, whether accused, suspect, or witness, with a particular emphasis on the case of Rujira Banerjee.
Moreover, the High Court instructed that investigative agencies should conduct their operations without the presence of media personnel and avoid pre-disclosure of intended raids or searches. It emphasized the importance of objective and accurate media reporting, insisting on the corroboration of disseminated information with concrete materials and sources.
The court also addressed the conduct of media during investigations, prohibiting the publication of photographs linking individuals to the investigation and barring the broadcast of live footage related to search, seizure, or interrogation activities. These guidelines were set to be adhered to by both the investigative agencies and media houses until January 15, 2024, or until further orders, whichever comes first.
Rujira Banerjee’s plea was grounded in concerns over privacy rights and the potential impact on fair trial principles. The High Court recognized her entitlement to fundamental rights protection, regardless of her status as an OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) cardholder, affirming the right to privacy as an intrinsic aspect of the right to life and personal liberty.
This case has highlighted the ongoing tension between the rights to privacy and fair trial and the responsibilities of investigative agencies and the media. It underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing these interests, particularly in high-profile cases involving political figures like Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC leader Mamata Banerjee. The Supreme Court’s decision to not entertain the ED’s plea reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on protecting individual rights while maintaining the integrity of ongoing investigations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Abhishek Banerjee
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
