Patna High Court. File photo
By Alok Mohit
Patna: In a significant order reaffirming the right to a fair trial, the Patna High Court has ruled that the media cannot portray an accused person as guilty or use expressions such as “scamster”, “kingpin”, “mastermind” or use any similar term suggesting criminal responsibility before the conclusion of judicial proceedings. Observing that such reporting amounted to a “media trial”, the court said it could prejudice the administration of justice and undermine the constitutional rights of an accused.
Justice Ansul passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Bihar contractor Rishu Shree, who has sought quashing of a Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) case registered in 2025 in connection with an alleged tender scam.
The court clarified that while the media was free to report factual developments and court proceedings, it must refrain from describing the petitioner as guilty, portraying him as having committed the alleged offences, or using expressions such as “scamster”, “kingpin”, “mastermind” or similar terms conveying criminal responsibility. It also barred media outlets from conducting “media trials” based on alleged confessions, investigation material or unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be tested in court.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Nandita Rao argued that although the FIR was registered in April 2025, the raid on her client’s residence took place more than a year later. She told the court that no incriminating material was recovered during the search. Despite this, television debates, newspaper reports and social media posts projected the petitioner as the central figure in the alleged scam, creating a public perception of guilt and jeopardising his right to a fair trial.
The court took note of several news reports placed on record and said many headlines and television discussions had effectively pronounced the petitioner guilty even before judicial proceedings had commenced. Such reporting, it said, could influence public opinion, affect potential witnesses and undermine the fairness of the trial process.
Justice Ansul said while freedom of the press was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it was not absolute and was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Reporting that maligns a person who has not been found guilty, the court noted, might amount to defamation and an impermissible pre-judging of issues pending before the judiciary.
Relying on a series of Supreme Court rulings, the high court reiterated that trial by media was contrary to the rule of law.
The court also directed the SVU to explain why the raid was carried out more than a year after registration of the FIR and asked the Enforcement Directorate, which has now been impleaded as a respondent, to file its counter affidavit. The court posted the matter for further hearing on July 10.
About the Author
Alok Mohit is a senior journalist based in Patna with decades of experience in mainstream journalism. He has previously served as Senior News Editor at Hindustan Times, Patna, and later at Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, where he played a key role in shaping news coverage and editorial direction. Known for his in-depth understanding of socio-political issues and strong editorial judgement, he continues to contribute insightful analysis and reporting on matters of public interest.
About the Author
