The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was reviewing the challenge against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive for an FIR to be registered by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the interview as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on August 30, directed that no coercive actions should be taken against ABP News Journalist Jagvinder Patial, who interviewed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi while he was custody in jails in Punjab and Rajasthan.
READ ALSO: Charges Filed Against Lawrence Bishnoi and 26 Others| Sidhu Moosewala Murder Case
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, was reviewing the challenge against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive for an FIR to be registered by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the interview as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The High Court had previously initiated a suo motu case concerning the use of mobile phones in Punjab’s prisons and established a three-member SIT to examine the involvement of prison officials in allowing the interview. The Court noted that the interview, which garnered 12 million views on YouTube, appeared to justify targeted killings and criminal activities.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice acknowledged the potential journalistic intent to expose criminal activities but highlighted the breach of prison regulations.
“At a certain level, your client may have breached jail regulations by seeking the interview. But the fact that it could happen within a jail is a very serious matter as well,”
remarked CJI Chandrachud.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing ABP News and the journalist, argued that the interview was part of a sting operation aimed at exposing corruption within the system.
He emphasized that the journalist’s efforts brought to light Bishnoi’s ongoing connections with gangster Goldy Brar in Canada and a conspiracy against actor Salman Khan in connection with the Black Buck case.
However, the CJI questioned whether this justified the breach of jail regulations and whether the security concerns raised by the High Court could be overlooked.
Rohatgi, defending the role of investigative journalism, stated,
“If you kill the messenger, who will expose the rot?”
In response, the Supreme Court issued a notice seeking responses from the States of Punjab and Rajasthan, as well as the Union Government.
The CJI said,
“We will issue notice here. Serve the standing counsel of the states of Punjab, Rajasthan, and the Union as well.”
Rohatgi further requested protection for the journalist, who is facing life threats due to the sting operation. He clarified that the journalist had not been arrested but expressed concern over potential arrest.
The bench directed Patial to cooperate with the ongoing SIT investigation and ordered that no coercive actions be taken against him until further orders from the Court.
The CJI questioned whether this justified breaching jail regulations and whether the concerns over prison security raised by the High Court could be dismissed.
Rohatgi emphasized the role of investigative journalism, stating,
“If you kill the messenger, who will expose the rot?”
The Supreme Court issued a notice seeking responses from the States of Punjab and Rajasthan, as well as the Union Government.
Rohatgi also requested protective measures for Patial, who is facing life threats due to the sting operation, clarifying that Patial has not been arrested. The bench directed Patial to cooperate with the ongoing SIT investigation and ordered that no coercive actions be taken against him until further orders from the Court.
Rohatgi argued that the High Court’s examination of inmate privileges led to an FIR against the journalist, which he claimed stifles investigative journalism.
“This approach punishes the messenger and stifles investigative journalism. Who will then expose corruption?”
he asserted.
In response, CJI Chandrachud questioned the legality of the interview, stating,
“The issue is that you accessed the jail and broadcast the interview on a TV channel. Whose permission did you obtain for this? While we acknowledge the broader aspects of Article 19(1)(a), there are specific restrictions related to incarceration.”
Rohatgi countered by suggesting that if the case proceeds, it should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) rather than being handled by the Punjab Police.
“How can the Punjab police handle it effectively? You are aware of the Watergate scandal, and if investigative journalists don’t uncover corruption, who will? Now, the journalist is facing threats,” Rohatgi argued.
Justice Pardiwala asked, “Is the journalist on bail?” to which Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi responded,
“No, and I am concerned about the possibility of my arrest. There were two interviews conducted, one in a Rajasthan jail and one in Punjab jail.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition by Lawrence Bishnoi challenging the High Court’s order for an SIT probe into the TV interview.
Background:
The controversy began when the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through a bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Lapita Banerji, formed an SIT to investigate the interview conducted by Bishnoi while he was in the custody of the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) in Kharar, Punjab.
The investigation was part of a suo motu case concerning the use of mobile phones in prisons. The Court, while recognizing the strength of the Punjab Police, emphasized the need to identify and hold accountable any corrupt officials within the force.
On August 7, the High Court expressed concern that the first interview, conducted on the night of September 3-4, 2022, took place while Bishnoi was in CIA custody in Kharar. A subsequent interview was conducted while he was in a Rajasthan jail. The Court noted that the interviews seemed to justify targeted killings and criminal activities and feared that the viral interview, with nearly 12 million views on YouTube, might have emboldened criminals.
It directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Punjab to file an affidavit detailing the registration of criminal cases related to extortion, ransom demands, abductions, and witness intimidation in the state from March 2023 to December 2023 when the interviews were ordered to be removed from the internet.
