A Delhi court on Tuesday, 17 January, observed that journalists do not enjoy any special legal protection when it comes to revealing their sources before investigating agencies, especially when such communication is crucial in aiding investigations. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Rouse Avenue Courts, Anjani Mahajan, made the observation while deciding on a closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case pertaining to a report published by the media regarding allegations of disproportionate assets possessed by late Samajwadi Party leader and former UP Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members.
In March 2007, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to inquire into the assets and wealth of Mulayam Singh and his family members after a writ petition was filed by lawyer Vishwanath Chaturvedi in 2005. On February 9, 2009, a day before the hearing, a report was published in the Times of India suggesting that the CBI may admit that Mulayam Singh was framed. Channels like Star News and CNN-IBN also aired the news, following which a complaint was filed by the CBI stating that “unknown persons during the year 2008-2009 entered into a criminal conspiracy and with the intent to commit forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of the CBI”.
In its final closure report, the CBI cited that “documents used by news channels were forged” but there is no information about who forged them since the “users of the forged documents did not disclose their source, therefore there is “no sufficient material/evidence to prove the criminal conspiracy”. Rejecting the closure report, the court observed, “Merely because the concerned journalists refused to reveal their respective sources, as stated in the final report, the investigating agency should not have put a halt to the entire investigation. There is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, more so where such disclosure is necessary for the purpose of aiding and assisting in the investigation of a criminal case.”
"The CBI is well within its power to direct the concerned journalists/news agencies by way of notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. etc. to provide the required information and bring to their notice the requisite facts of the case warranting disclosure of the information as per law," the court further noted. The court observed that only Bhupendra Chaubey was mentioned as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by CBI along with the closure report and there was no mention of journalists Deepak Chaurasia, Bhupinder Chaubey, and Manoj Mitta as they were also examined.
"There are no statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Deepak Chaurasia and Manoj Mitta on the record, nor are they cited as witnesses in either of the lists of the witnesses filed by the CBI," the Delhi court said. Additionally, the court also said that more inquiries of the journalists regarding the sources from whom the allegedly fabricated papers were obtained and used as the basis for their news items must be carried out.
In a similar incident, the Bengaluru Police issued a notice to the founder of a digital investigative news organisation on January 5 this year, asking him to reveal the source for a story related to a scam in the recruitment of high school teachers published in November last year. The Cyber Crime Police issued a notice to Mahantesh, the founder and editor of the online portal The File based in Bengaluru. The Karnataka Criminal Investigation Department (CID) arrested 60 people in connection with the scam in September 2022. The police notice was issued in connection with a follow-up story published by The File in November of the same year.
Refusing to divulge his sources, Mahantesh, the founder and editor of The File, in his response to the police said, "It is not the ethics of journalism to divulge the name and details of a source who gives information about a scam, illegality, malpractice, maladministration." There are no special provisions in India giving a journalist protection of source confidentiality in a court of law. This is despite the 93rd and 185th Reports of the Law Commission of India recommending that journalistic privilege, subject to reasonable restrictions, should be codified into law.
With inputs from IANS