The Supreme Court said public anger in high-profile cases is understandable but cannot control investigations or court decisions. Justice must be based on evidence and impartial inquiry, not media pressure or majority sentiment.
New Delhi, February 17: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made strong observations on the importance of independent investigations, stating that justice cannot be guided by public opinion or majority sentiment. The Court said that while public anger in high-profile cases is natural, it should never influence the direction of an inquiry.
A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan underlined that allowing public pressure to shape investigative outcomes can lead to serious miscarriage of justice. The Court made these remarks while upholding the two-year jail sentence of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, who was convicted for abetting the suicide of Telugu actress Pratyusha in 2002.
The Bench clearly stated,
“The court emphasises that justice is not served by following majority sentiment or public pressure. Justice is served by truth, established through evidence and impartial investigation. While public outrage is understandable in high-profile cases, it should never dictate the course of inquiry. Investigations require careful collection of evidence, impartial analysis and conclusions grounded in fact.
“A society committed to fairness must recognise that investigators and courts serve the truth, not popularity. Their independence is not a luxury but the foundation of justice itself,”
the bench said.
The Supreme Court stressed that in sensitive matters, especially those that attract heavy media coverage, investigative authorities and courts must remain focused only on facts and evidence. The judges cautioned that public campaigns, media debates, and emotional reactions cannot replace proper legal procedures.
While examining the case, the Court also strongly criticised Dr Muni Swamy, who conducted the post-mortem of Pratyusha. The Bench noted that even though another doctor was officially on duty on February 25, 2002, Swamy went to the mortuary on his own and performed the autopsy.
The Court found it surprising that he was neither assigned mortuary duty nor on call as a professor on that day.
The Bench observed, “The premature and erroneous opinion of Dr Muni Swamy unleashed a wave of public controversy. Media reports amplified his conclusions, leading to a widespread suspicion of the investigators and calls for immediate action against the alleged perpetrators.
“This demonstrates how a single erroneous report, when publicised prematurely, can distort public perception and derail the course of justice,”
the bench observed.
The Court further highlighted the wider impact of such actions. It said that when a medical professional issues an incorrect post-mortem report and shares it with the media before proper verification, the damage goes beyond one individual case.
“It spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative agencies and institutions, such as police and the judiciary, prejudices public opinion, traumatises the victim’s family and undermines the rule of law.
“Such misconduct does not merely harm one case, it corrodes public trust in medicine, law and governance, destabilising peace and harmony in the society. It also violates the sub-judice rule, which restricts commentary on matters under judicial consideration to preserve fairness and integrity,”
the apex court said.
The Supreme Court held that Swamy’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct and contempt of court.
“It also breaches medical ethics, which demand competence, honesty and diligence. However, in view of his demise, this court refrains from imposing any further consequences,”
it said.
Pratyusha had died in Hyderabad on February 24, 2002. According to the prosecution case mentioned in the remand report, she and Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy had been in a relationship for nearly six years. While Pratyusha’s mother reportedly accepted their relationship, Reddy’s mother opposed their marriage. Due to this disagreement, the couple allegedly decided to end their lives.
On February 23, 2002, they travelled together in a car, purchased a bottle of pesticide, mixed it with cola, and consumed it. However, they later changed their minds and decided that they did not want to die. Reddy drove them to Care Hospital in Hyderabad for treatment. Despite receiving medical care, Pratyusha could not be saved, while Reddy survived.
By upholding the conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal cases must be decided strictly on legal evidence and proper investigation. The ruling sends a strong message that courts and investigators must function independently and cannot allow media trials or public pressure to interfere with the administration of justice.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Private Universities
