Delhi: The ‘culture of thrusting a microphone’ in the face of a person needs to be deprecated, The Delhi High Court on Friday said, while observing that every individual/accused has a right to silence under the Constitution, and that no person can be compelled to give testimony or answer questions that may lead to incrimination.
Court also refused to grant an injunction in the plea by Shahi Tharoor against allegedly defamatory reporting on Sunanda Pushkar’s death by Republic TV and Arnab Goswami.
The Court asked the news channel to give Tharoor a written notice asking for his version, before airing any stories pertaining to him. If he refuses or does not reply within a reasonable time, he should not be compelled to speak and the story should be aired with a disclosure that the he has refused to speak to the channel.
“Irrespective of the style of reporting and the remarks made, this Court is prima facie of the view that reporting in the present matter is a case of legitimate investigative journalism as even three and a half years after the death of Ms. Sunanda Pushkar, wife of a then sitting Union Minister, no charge-sheet has been filed,” held The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmohan.
“Journalists are free to investigate but they cannot pronounce anyone guilty and/or pre judge the issue and/or prejudice the trial. The grant of the fairest of the opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence is the object of every fair trial,” HC said.
The Court further observed that every individual/accused has a right to silence under the Constitution, and that no person can be compelled to give testimony or answer questions that may lead to incrimination.
“The ‘culture of thrusting a microphone’ in the face of a person needs to be deprecated.”
The Court also commented on the war of words between tharoor and goswami on twitter wherein former had described Goswami as an ‘unprincipled showman masquerading as a journalist‘.
In response to this tweet, Goswami had called Tharoor an ‘unprincipled criminal masquerading as a politician’.
On a lighter note, the Court stated,: “TV viewers who want to watch action films should not watch TV debates on current affairs on the ground that it contains more action and violence than any action film.”
(courtesy BarandBench)
