Patna High Court Issues Guidelines for Media Reporting on Criminal Cases
The Patna High Court has recently set significant boundaries on how the media can report on criminal cases before a trial, particularly with reference to labeling accused individuals with terms that imply guilt. In the case of Rishu Shree v State of Bihar, the court underscored that media outlets must avoid using descriptors such as “mastermind,” “scamster,” or “kingpin” when reporting on accused individuals before their trials have concluded. This ruling, delivered by Justice Ansul on June 24, emphasizes the need to protect an individual’s right to a fair trial, free from prejudicial media coverage.
Impact of Media Descriptions on Fair Trials
Justice Ansul highlighted the potential harm in prejudging an accused person’s guilt through media descriptions, noting that such actions could amount to defamation or even indecent conduct. The court’s decision arose from a petition by Rishu Shree, who sought to have a first information report (FIR) quashed. The FIR was filed by the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in connection with an alleged tender scam, and the petitioner was arrested following a raid at his residence on May 27, 2026, despite the FIR being registered more than a year earlier on April 30, 2025.
Concerns Over Media Trials
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, representing Shree, argued that media outlets had already portrayed her client as guilty of the alleged offenses, despite no incriminating evidence being found during the search. This portrayal had extended to television debates and social media, creating public prejudice and potentially influencing witnesses. The court reviewed several media reports that described Shree’s alleged involvement in the scam and noted the widespread portrayal of his guilt.
Balancing Press Freedom and Fair Trials
The court reiterated that the freedom of the press, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, must be balanced with an accused’s right to a fair trial. Citing Supreme Court cases such as State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, MP Lohia v State of West Bengal, and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v SEBI, Justice Ansul cautioned against the dangers of media trials and stressed the importance of responsible reporting.
Guidelines for Media Reporting
While the court stopped short of imposing a complete ban on media reporting, it laid down clear guidelines. Media organizations are free to report factual developments and court proceedings but are prohibited from:
More Read
- Labeling Shree as guilty of any alleged offenses.
- Portraying Shree as having committed the alleged offenses.
- Publishing material that determines Shree’s criminal liability.
- Using expressions that assign guilt, such as “mastermind,” “scamster,” or “kingpin.”
- Conducting media trials based on unverified confessions or documents.
The court clarified that these restrictions do not prevent fair, accurate, and objective reporting on ongoing court proceedings.
Further Proceedings and Legal Representation
The court also directed the SVU to explain the delay between the FIR registration and the raid and instructed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to submit a counter affidavit. The matter is set for further hearing on July 10. Representing Rishu Shree, Senior Advocate Nandita Rao collaborated with several advocates, including Arshadeep Singh Khurana and Kumaresh Singh. The SVU was represented by Advocate Arvind Kumar, while the ED’s counsel, led by Special Counsel Zohaib Hossain, included Advocates Prabhat Kumar Singh and others.
