Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate (Anjani K. Singh and Chandra Prakash, Advocates) for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Justice P. Sathasivam
  • Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate (Anjani K. Singh and Chandra Prakash, Advocates) for the Petitioner.
Judges
  • Justice P. Sathasivam
  • Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Acts
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court. The relief sought was a writ of mandamus (or other appropriate writ/order) restraining the respondents and the media from publishing any material that could prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. In the alternative, the petitioner asked for postponement of such publications until the criminal trial concludes.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court should issue a writ restraining or postponing media publications that may prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Highlighted specific newspaper articles and electronic media coverage alleged to jeopardize the right to a fair trial.
  • Relied on prior Supreme Court decisions that deal with media reporting and its impact on criminal trials: State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386; M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 686; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1; and Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603.
  • Contended that immediate judicial intervention was required to safeguard the constitutional presumption of innocence and ensure an untainted trial process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386 Guidelines on media reporting in relation to criminal proceedings and fair trial. Court acknowledged existing directions and expected media compliance.
M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 686 Concerns over prejudicial publicity and its effect on the accused’s rights. Referenced as part of the established jurisprudence governing media conduct.
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 Detailed discussion on “trial by media” and the balance between free press and fair trial. Court relied on its ratio to reinforce that adequate safeguards already exist.
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603 Doctrine of postponement orders to prevent prejudicial reporting. Court invoked the decision to show that postponement mechanisms are available if warranted.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Bench, after an extensive hearing of the petitioner’s senior counsel and perusal of the impugned media reports, concluded that the existing body of Supreme Court jurisprudence already provides sufficient guidelines to protect an accused’s right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court found “no need to entertain the writ petition” at this stage. It expressed confidence that both print and electronic media would adhere to the directions previously articulated in the cited cases. The order records that should the media fail to comply with those guidelines, the petitioner retains the liberty to approach the Court again.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The writ petition was dismissed without substantive relief, but with observations reaffirming existing media guidelines. Immediate consequence: no injunction or postponement order was issued. Broader implication: the Court signaled that established precedents sufficiently address concerns of prejudicial publicity, reserving the possibility of future intervention only if those guidelines are demonstrably breached.

Show full summary ...

    Asharam Bapu v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order, direction, restraining the respondents as well as media in general from publishing any news report/article in any manner whatsoever, adversely prejudicing the petitioner's right to fair trial and presumption of being innocent until proved guilty before the competent court of law or in alternative the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ(s), direction(s) directing postponement of publication of any news report/article in any manner whatsoever, adversely prejudicing the petitioner's right to fair trial and presumption of being innocent until proved guilty before the competent court of law at least till conclusion of the trial.

    2. We have heard Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. After taking us through the publication made in certain dailies as well as coverage of electronic media, Mr Vikas Singh has also relied on various earlier decisions of this Court viz. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386, SCC para 37; M.P Lohia v. State of W.B (2005) 2 SCC 686, SCC para 10; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1, SCC paras 297-303 and Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603, SCC paras 12, 47 and 50.

    3. After hearing the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the publication and news coverage which are enclosed with the present writ petition as well as the ratio laid down in various decisions, we are of the view that for the present there is no need to entertain the writ petition. In view of various directions in the abovereferred cases, we hope and trust that the media both print and electronic would follow those guidelines.

    4. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is free to approach this Court if the ratio laid down by this Court is not adhered to by the reporting agencies.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Asharam Bapu v. Union Of India And Others
    (Oct 21, 2013)