STATE THROUGH SUPDTT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHIversusCHARULATA JOSHI AND ANR.

      STATE THROUGH SUPDTT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI                               A
                                      v.
                    CHAR ULA TA JOSHI AND ANR.

                              APRIL 13, 1999

               [G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]                                B

      Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 19(1) (a) and 21-Freedom of
press-Interview of an undertrial prisoner inside jail-Grant .of-Held, Court
can grant permission but not mechanically without application of mind-
Competing interest between the right of the press and the right of the C
authorities prohibiting interview has to be weighed in the interest of
administration ofjustice-Permission to be granted subject to the provisions
of Ja!l Manual.

       Respondent-news magazine moved an application before the Additional
Sessions Judge seeking permission to interview an under trial prisoner in         D
jail. The said application was allowed. On revisions, High Court while not
interfering with the order granting permission, modified it by issuing certain
directions. Aggrieved, appellant-Jail authorities have preferred the present
appea~

      Dispqsing of the appeal, this Court                                         E

     HELD : 1.1. The Additional Sessions Judge before whom the case of
undertrial prisoner is pending, has authority to issue permission to the
press to interview the said undertrial inside the jail. However, the said
permission cannot be granted mechanically without application of mind.            F
                                                                      [607-H)

      1.2. Under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, freedom of press is not
absolute. The press does not have an unfettered right to interview an
undertrial prisoner in jail. The Court granting permission will have to
weigh the competing interest between the right of a press and the right of        G
the Authorities prohibiting such interview in the interest of administration
of justice. The Court, therefore, before disposing of an application seeking
permission to interview an undertrial in .iail must notice the jail authorities
and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying
such interviews. The Court also should try to find out whether any restrictions
or prohibitions are contained in the Jail Manual. The so-called permission        H
                                     605
    606                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A granted by the Court would be subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations
    contained in the Jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities of the
    undertrial prisoners. [608-D)

          1.3. In the instant case, Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the
    application seeking permission to interview by passing a blanket order
B   without applying his mind and without even knowing the mind of the authorities
    and without bearing in mind the law laid down by this court in Smt. Prabha
    Dutt* and Sheela Barse* cases. However, High Court did bear in mind the
    ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and, therefore, while
    granting permission to interview the undertrial prisoners it modified the
C   blanket order passed by the Sessions Judge putting such restrictions and
    conditions as contained in the impugned order. No grievance, therefore, can
    be made to the impugned order of the High Court. However, the interview
    which the press would take will be regulated by the provisions contained in
    Jail Manuals and, therefore, the Jail Aut'1orities can modulate the same in
    accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Mano.ti. [609-A-B-C-D)
D
         Smt. Prabha Dutt. v. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 1 Supreme Court
    Cases 1 and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 4 Supreme Court
    Cases 373, referred to.

E       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    718of1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.96 of the Delhi High Court in
    Cr!. M. No.2675of1995.           ·

         T.C. Sharma, R.N. Verma (A.K. Sharma) and B. Krishna Prasad for the
F
    Appellant.

         Sushi! Salwan, Sunil Gupta, Pramod Dayal and Piyush Sharma for the
    Respondents.                                                ·

G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PATTANAIK. J. Competing rights, namely, right of press to interview
    a prisoner in jail and right of jail authorities prohibiting such interview arise
    for consideration in the present appeal. One Babloo Srivastava, who is in
    judicial custody and is being tried for offence under Section 302 read with
H   Section 1208 had been lodged in Tihar Jail. The news magazine 'India Today'
                   STATE v. C.J. JOSHI [PATTANAIK, J.]                      607
moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi seeking           A
pennission to interview the under-trial prisoner in jail. The learned Sessions
Judge by his order dated 6.11.95 granted the permission sought for. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order the prosecuting agency moved t.he High
Court in Revision. By the impugned order dated 1st May, 1996, the High Court
did not interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting
pennission but modified the same by issuing the following directions:-             B
         "However, it is made clear that the interview and/or photographs of
        Bab loo Srivastava would be taken only if he expressed his willingness
        and not otherwise. If given, the respondent newsmagazine is expected
        to publish the interview with a sense ofpropriety and balance and          C
        without offending the Jaw of contempt of Courts or impairing the
        administration of justice."

       The aforesaid order is being challenged in this appeal. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the pennission in           D
question and the order itself indicates that the learned Sessions Judge had
passed the order mechanically without application of mind. He had also
contended that though the High Court had modified the said order yet the
right of the Jail authorities to deny interview for good reasons has been
.conceded by this Court in Smt. Prabha Dutt. v. Union of India and others,
[1982] 1 Supreme Court Cases 1, and therefore, the High Court was not              E
justified in issuing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents
on the other hand contended that there is no provisions in the Jail Manual
prohibiting interviews of the undertrial prisoners. In the absence of such
prohibition the Right of Press, as engrafted in Article l 9(1)(a) cannot be
curtailed though the learned counsel urged that while granting permission the      F
Court may put such conditions as it thinks fit in the interest of administration
of justice. The learned counsel also urged that the High Court has considered
all the germane factors and has modified the order of the learned Sessions
 Judge, and therefore, there is no infinnity with the order of the High Court
so as to be interfered with.
                                                                                   G
      At the outset we take up the issue regarding the authority of the
learned Sessions Judge in granting permission. As it appears, the accused is
an under-trial prisoner and the case is pending in the Court of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge who had granted the order of permission. The trial
of the accused being pending before the Additional Sessions Judge it cannot
be said that he had no authority to issue permission to the Press to interview     H
    608                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A the under trial inside the jail. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the
    argument of the learned counsel for the appellant appearing in this Court.

           Coming to the second limb of the objections raised by the learned
    counsel appearing for the appellant, there cannot be any dispute with the
    proposition that the order granting permission to the Press to interview an
B   under-trial ~annot be passed mechanically without application of mind. In as
    much as the Court granting permission will have to weigh the competing
    interest between the right of a Press and the right of the Authorities prohibiting
    such interview in the interest of administration of justice. The Court, therefore,
    before disposing of an application seeking permission to interview an under-
C   trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can be
    any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews. The Court also
    should try to find out whether any restrictions or prohibitions are contained
    in the Jail Manual. The so called permission granted by the Court would be
    subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations contained in the Jail Manual
    dealing with the rights and liabilities of .the under-trial prisoners. In Smt.
D   Prabha's case (supra) this Court had observed that the Constitutional Right
    to Freedom of Speech and Expression conferred by Article l 9(l)(a) of the
    Contitution which includes the Freedom of Press is not an absolute right and
    does not 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
E   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. The Court
    also in the aforesaid case expressed the opinion that the Press must first
    obtain the willingness of the person sought to be interviewed and no Court
    can pass any order ifthe person to be interviewed expresses his unwillingness.
F   It was also indicated in the aforesaid judgment that the so called right of the
    Press which it obtains on the basis of a permisison from the Court would be
    subject to the prohibitions of the Jail Manual. .

          In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, [ 1987] 4 Supreme Court Cases
G   373, this Court also considered the Right of Press under Article 19(l)(a), the
    Right of the Prisoners under Article 21 and reasonable restrictions which can
    be put on such interviews. It was also observed that the interviews of the
    prisoners become necessary as otherwise the correct information may not be
    collected but such access has to be controlled and regulated and the Pressmen
    are not entitled to uncontrolled interview. It was also stated that those who
H   receive permission to have interviews will have to agree to abide by reasonable
                       STATE v. C.J. JOSHI [PATTANAIK, J.]                      609
    restrictions as contained in the Jail Manual, and therefore, pennission granted    A
    by the Court would be subject to provisions contained in the Jail Manual
    itself.

           Bearing in mind the ratio in the aforesaid two judgments of this Court


-
    if we examine the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it can be
    said without hesitation that the said learned Additional Sessions Judge            B
    disposed of the application seeking pennission to interview by passing a
    blanket order without applying his mind and without even knowing the mind
    of the authorities and without bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court
    in the aforesaid two decisions. No Court would pass such a blanket order
    mechanically without applying its mind to the relevant factors, as the Press       C
    does not have an unfettered right to interview an under trial prisoner in jail.
    When we examine the impugned order of the High Court we find that the High
    Court did bear in mind the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court
    and, therefore, while granting pennission to interview the under-trial prisoners
    it modified the blanket order passed by the I.earned Sessions Judge putting
    such restrictions and conditions as contained in the impugned order. No            D
    grievance, therefore, can be made to the impugned order of the High Court.
    But after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we may add a further
    condition that the interview which the Press would take will be regulated by
    the provisions contained in Jail Manuals and, therefore, the Jail Authorities
    can modulate the same in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail      E
    Manual. In the Course of hearing it was pointed out to us that the said under-
    trial prisoner is no longer in Tihar Jail and we do not know whether the News
    Magazine still intends to interview the said under-trial prisoner. In the event
    the Magazine still intends to interview the under-trial prisoner then he must
    approach the appropriate Jail Authorities where the said under-trial prisoner
    has been lodged and those Authorities will bear in mind the conditions put         F
    by the High Court and the observations made by us in this judgment before
    allowing the interview in question.

          This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.

    S.VKI.                                                    Appeal disposed of.      G