Prabha Dutt Vs. Union of India &
Ors [1981] INSC 191 (7 November 1981)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
((CJ) SEN, A.P. (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION: 1982 AIR 6 1982 SCR (1)1184 1982
SCC (1) 1 1981 SCALE (3)1757
ACT:
Constitution of India-Article
19(I)(a)-Journalist if has a right to means of information-If could claim right
to interview a prisoner sentenced to death.
Jail Manual-Rule 549(4) Journalist-If could
claim to be friend of society and can claim right of interview with condemned
prisoner.
HEADNOTE:
The constitutional right to freedom of speech
and expression conferred by article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which
includes the freedom of Press, is not an absolute right; nor indeed does it
confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of
information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and
expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other
citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India the
security of the State, public order, decency and morality. [1185 FG] The right
claimed by the petitioner in the present case, a newspaper reporter, to
interview two convicts under sentence of death is not a right to express any
particular view, or opinion but the right to means of information through the
medium of an interview with them. No such right can be claimed by the Press
unless the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. [1185
H] The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal
obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such as there is
under section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. [1186 A] Rule 549(4) of
the Jail Manual provides that a prisoner under a sentence of death shall be allowed
interviews and other communications with relatives, friends and legal advisers,
journalists and newspapermen, though not expressly referred to in this rule
cannot be denied the opportunity of interview without good reasons. There is no
reason why newspapermen who could be termed as friends of the society be denied
the right of interview under rule 549(4). [1186 D- F] There can be no doubt
that a person, who desires to interview a prisoner may have to subject himself
or herself to the search in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
the interviews. [1187 A-B] Whether representatives of the Press should be
allowed to be present at the time of the execution of the death sentence is a
matter for the Superintendent to consider on merits and in accordance with the
jail regulations. It is not a matter for the Court to decide. [1187 G] 1185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8193
of 1981.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of
India.) R. K. Garg and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.
Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. 1.
N. C. Talukdar, K.S. Gurumoorly and R. N.
Poddar for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
P. N. Lekhi and K. C. Dua for the Applicants.
P. K. Bahardwaj in person for Times of India.
B. M. Srivastava for U.N.I.
V. S. Karnic for P.T.I.
The order of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution by
the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times, Smt. Prabha Dutt, asking for a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the
respondents, particularly the Delhi Administration and the Superintendent of
Jail, Tihar, to allow her to interview two convicts Billa and Ranga who are
under a sentence of death.
We may mention that the aforesaid two
prisoners have been sentenced to death for an offence under section 302 Indian
Penal Code and the petitions filed by them to the President of India for
commutation of the sentence are reported to have been rejected by the President
recently.
Before considering the merits of the
application, we would like to observe that the constitutional right to freedom
of speech and expression conferred by article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
which includes the freedom of the Press, is not an absolute right, nor indeed
does it confer any right on the Press, to have an unrestricted access to means
of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and
expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other
citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, public order, decency and morality. But in the instant
case, the right claimed by the petitioner is not the right to express any
particular view or opinion but the right to means of information through the
medium of an interview of the two prisoners who are sentenced to death. No such
right can be claimed by the Press unless in the first instance, the person
sought to be interviewed is 1186 willing to be interviewed. The existence of a
free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to
supply information to the Press, such for example, as there is under section
161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. No data has been made available to us on
the basis of which it would be possible for us to say that the two prisoners
are ready and willing to be interviewed. We have, however, no data either that
they are not willing to be interviewed and, indeed, if it were to appear that
the prisoners themselves do not desire to be interviewed, it would have been
impossible for us to pass an order directing that the petitioner should be
allowed to interview them.
While we are on this aspect of the matter, we
cannot overlook that the petitioner has been asking for permission to interview
the prisoners right since the President of India rejected the petitions filed
by the prisoners for commutation of their sentence to imprisonment for life. We
are proceeding on the basis that the prisoners are willing to be interviewed.
Rule 549(4) of the Manual for the
Superintendence and Management of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides
that every prisoner under a sentence of death shall be allowed such interviews
and other communications with his relatives, friends and legal advisers as the Superintendent
thinks reasonable. Journalists or newspapermen are not expressly referred to in
clause (4) but that does not mean that they can always and without good reasons
be denied the opportunity to interview a condemned prisoner. If in any given
case, there are weighty reasons for doing so, which we expect will always be
recorded in writing, the interview may appropriately be refused. But no such
consideration has been pressed upon us and therefore we do not see any reason
why newspapermen who can broadly, and we suppose without great fear of
contradiction, be termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an
interview under clause (4) of rule 549.
Rule 559A also provides that all reasonable
indulgence should be allowed to a condemned prisoner in the matter of
interviews with relatives, friends, legal advisers and approved religious
ministers. Surprisingly, but we do not propose to dwell on that issue, this
rule provides that no newspapers should be allowed. But it does not provide
that no newspapermen will be allowed.
Mr. Talukdar who appears on behalf of the
Delhi Administration contends that if we are disposed to allow the petitioner
to interview the prisoners, the interviews can be permitted only subject to the
rules and regulations contained in the Jail Manual. There 1187 can be no doubt
about this position because, for example, rule 552A provides for a search of
the person who wants to interview a prisoner. If it is thought necessary that
such a search should be taken, a person who desires to interview a prisoner may
have to subject himself or herself to the search in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing the interviews. There is a provision in the rules
that if a person who desires to interview a prisoner is a female, she can be
searched only by a matron or a female warden.
Taking an overall view of the matter, we do
not see any reason why the petitioner should not be allowed to interview the
two convicts Billa and Ranga.
During the course of the hearing of this
petition, representatives of the Times of India, India Today, PTI and UNI also
presented their applications asking for a similar permission. What we have said
must hold good in their cases also and they, in our opinion, should be given
the same facility of interviewing the prisoners as we are disposed to give to
the petitioner in the main writ petition.
We therefore direct that the Superintendent
of the Tihar Jail shall allow the aforesaid persons, namely the representatives
of the Hindustan Times, the Times of India, India Today, the Press Trust of
India and the United News of India to interview the aforesaid two prisoners,
namely, Billa and Ranga, today. The interviews may be allowed at 4 O'Clock in the evening. The representatives agree before us that all of them will
interview the prisoners jointly and for not more than one hour on the whole.
There will be no order as to costs.
Mr. Lekhi who appears on behalf of the
magazine India Today as also Mr. Jain who appears on behalf of the Hindustan
Times has requested us to direct the Superintendent of Jail to allow the
aforesaid representatives to be present at the time of the execution of the
death sentence. That is not a matter for us to decide. If such an application
is made to the Superintendent of Jail, he will be free to consider the same on
merits and in accordance with the jail regulations.
P.B.R.
Back