Holding

The Supreme Court held that while Article 19 does not create an absolute right to information, Rule 549(4) requires the jail superintendent to allow journalists to interview condemned prisoners unless compelling reasons exist, and in the present case no such reasons were shown.

Summary

Prabha Dutt, chief reporter of Hindustan Times, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to allow her to interview two death‑row convicts, Billa and Ranga, in Tihar Jail. The Court examined whether Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution confers a press right to unrestricted access to information and held that it does not, but the right to interview is governed by Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual, which permits interviews with relatives, friends, legal advisers and journalists unless there are weighty reasons to refuse. The Court found no such reasons and, noting that the prisoners were presumed willing, directed the Superintendent to permit the interview. The order was extended to other media organisations (Times of India, India Today, PTI, UNI) and specified the time and duration of the interview. The Court declined to decide on the separate request to be present at the execution, leaving that to the jail authorities. Consequently, the petition was granted and a writ directing the interview was issued.

Issues considered

Whether Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees a press right to interview condemned prisoners.
Whether Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual obliges the jail superintendent to allow journalists to interview death‑row inmates in the absence of weighty reasons.
Whether the press may be present at the time of execution of a death sentence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 161(2)
Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(a)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 302
Jail Manual (Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails)s. Rule 549(4), s. Rule 552A, s. Rule 559A

Subjects

Article 19Freedom of PressRight to InformationJail ManualDeath row prisonersMedia interviewExecutionWrit petitionConstitutional law

Judgment

A 1184

PRABHA DUTT -
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
B
November 7, 1981

[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., A. P. SEN & BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.)

Constitution of India-Article 19(l)(a}-Journalist if has a right to n1eans of
...
c information-If could claim right to interview a prisoner sente11ctd to death.

Jail Manual-Rule 549(4) Journalist-If could claim to befriend of society
and can claim right of interview with condemned prisoner.

The constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by
article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of Press, is not
an absolute right; nor indeed docs it confer any right on the Press to have an
D 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 rhe security of the State, public order, decency and morality. [1185 FG]

The right claimed by the petitioner in the present case, a newspaper repor·
ter, to interview two convicts under sentence of death is not a right to express
E 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 claimeci by the Press
unless the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. [l J85 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 Crimmal Procedure Code. (1186 A]
F
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]
G
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
H 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]
PRABHA DUTT v. UNION (Chandrachud, c. J.) 1185

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1981. A
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

R. K. Garg and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.

Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. I.
B
N. C. Talukdar, K.S. Gurumoorty and R. N. Poddar for Res-
pondents Nos. 2 to 4.

P. N. lekhi and K. C. Dua for the Applicants.

.... P. K. Bahardwaj in person for Times of India .
c
B. M. Srivastava for U.N.l

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 D
Constitution by the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times, Smt.
Prabha Dutt, asking f"r a writ of mandamus or any other appro-
priate 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 E
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
F
and expression conferred by article 19(l)(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 unres-
tricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to
exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter G
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 in.slant 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 H
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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 1 s.c.R.

A 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.
B 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
c for permission to interview the prisoners right since the President
of India rejected the petitions filed by the prisoners for commuta-
tion 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
D 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
E 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 appro-
priately 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 contradic-
F tion, 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.
G 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 Adminis-
H tration 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 contqined in the Jail Manual. There
PRABllA btJTT v. UNION (Chandrachud, C. i.) il87

can be no doubt about this position because, for example, rule 552A A
provides for a search of the person who wants to interview a pri-
soner. 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, B
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.
:c
During the course of the hearing of this petition, represen-
tatives of the Times of India, India Today, PT! and UNI also pre-
sented 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 D
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 E
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. F
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 afore-
said 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 G
consider the same on merits and in accordance with the jail
regulations.

P.B.R.
H