SHEELA BARSE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 18-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEELA BARSE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1987 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Permission to journalists to interview prisoners and tape-record 'r
the interviews, guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21-Benefits 
thereof for all the citizens. 
Sheela Barse, a free lance journalist, sought permission to 
interview the female prisoners in the Maharashtra State ,Jails. The 
permission was granted by the Inspector-General of Prisons. As, how-
ever, the journalist started tape-recording her interviews with the pris-
oners, the permission to interview was withdrawn. Feeling ag"rieved by 
the cancellation of the permission, the journalist moved this Court in its 
writ jurisdiction on the ground that a citizen has a right to know under 
Articles 19(l)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, if the Government is 
administering the jails in accordance with law, and that the Press has a 
special responsibility to collect information on public issues to educate 
the people. The permission in question was cancelled, as stated by the 
Inspector-General of Prisons in his counter-affidavit to the Writ Peti-
tion, on the ground inter alia that the permission bad been granted to 
the petitioner in contravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual and 
the rules made thereunder, which govern the interviews with the pris-
oners; the petitioner, an amateur free lance journalist not employed by 
any responsible newspaper, was not covered by the said rules. The 
respondent also contended that the Articles of the Constitution referred 
to by the petitioner were not attracted to the case. 
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court, 
HELD: The term 'life' in Article 21 covers the living <"Onditions of 
the prisoners, prevailing in the jails. The prisoners are also entitled to 
G 
the benefit of the guarantees provided in the Article subject to reason· 
able restrictions. It is necessary that public gaze should be permitted on 
the prisoners, and the pressmen as friends of the society and public-
spirited citizens should have access to information about, and interviews 
with, the prisoners. But such access has to be controlled and regulated. 
The petitioner is not entitled to uncontrolled interviews. The factual 
H 
information collected as a result of the interviews should usually be 
210 
SHEELA BARSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (MISRA, J.J 
211 
cross-checked with the authorities, so that a wrong picture or a situation 
A 
~ may not be published. Disclosure of correct information is necessary, 
but tJ1ere is to be no dissemination of wrong information. Persons, who 
get permission to interview have to abide by reasonable restrictions. As 
for tape-recording the interviews, there may be cases where such tape-
recording is necessary, hut tape-recording is to be subject to special 
permission of the appropriate authority. There may be some individu-
B 
als or class of persons in the prisons with whom interviews may not be 
permitted for reasons indicated by this Court in Prabha Dutt v. Union 
of India & Ors., (1982] 1 S.C.R. 1184. The interviews cannot be forced 
upon anyone and willingness of the prisoners to be interviewed is always 
to be insisted upon. There may also be certain othe1· cases, where, for 
good' reasons, permission to interview the prisoners may be withheld, 
C 
which situations can be considered as and when they arise. [21SC; 
217F; 218B, E-H; 219A-B) 
The petitioner can make a fresh application for permission to 
interview the prisoners, which is to be dealt with in accordance with the 
guidelines laid down hereinabove. [219B) 
D 
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1184; 
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, [1979) 1 S.C.R. 392 and Francis 
Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., 
(1981] 1 S.C.C. 608, referred to. 
f/ 
ORIGINALJURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1053of 1982. 
E 
, 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Soleman Khurshid and K.K. Luthra for the Petitioner. 
( 
1 
S.B. Bhasme, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the F 
""\,Respondent. 
L.R. Singh for the Intervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Petitioner is a Bombay-based free 
lance journalist who had sought permission to interview women pris-
G 
i 
oners in the Maharashtra jails and on 6.5.1982, the Inspector-General 
of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female 
pr!soners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail, the Yera

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.