STATE THROUGH SUPDTT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI versus CHARULATA JOSHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 13-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE THROUGH SUPDTT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI 
A 
v. 
CHAR ULA TA JOSHI AND ANR. 
APRIL 13, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 19(1) (a) and 21-Freedom of 
press-Interview of an undertrial prisoner inside jail-Grant .of-Held, Court 
B 
can grant permission but not mechanically without application of mind-
Competing interest between the right of the press and the right of the C 
authorities prohibiting interview has to be weighed in the interest of 
administration of justice-Permission to be granted subject to the provisions 
of Ja!l Manual. 
Respondent-news magazine moved an application before the Additional 
Sessions Judge seeking permission to interview an under trial prisoner in 
jail. The said application was allowed. On revisions, High Court while not 
interfering with the order granting permission, modified it by issuing certain 
directions. Aggrieved, appellant-Jail authorities have preferred the present 
appea~ 
Dispqsing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Additional Sessions Judge before whom the case of 
undertrial prisoner is pending, has authority to issue permission to the 
press to interview the said undertrial inside the jail. However, the said 
D 
E 
permission cannot be granted mechanically without application of mind. 
F 
[607-H) 
1.2. Under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, freedom of press is not 
absolute. The press does not have an unfettered right to interview an 
undertrial prisoner in jail. The Court granting permission will have to 
weigh the competing interest between the right of a press and the right of G 
the Authorities prohibiting such interview in the interest of administration 
of justice. The Court, therefore, before disposing of an application seeking 
permission to interview an undertrial in .iail must notice the jail authorities 
and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying 
such interviews. The Court also should try to find out whether any restrictions 
or prohibitions are contained in the Jail Manual. The so-called permission H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A granted by the Court would be subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations 
contained in the Jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities of the 
undertrial prisoners. [608-D) 
1.3. In the instant case, Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the 
application seeking permission to interview by passing a blanket order 
B without applying his mind and without even knowing the mind of the authorities 
and without bearing in mind the law laid down by this court in Smt. Prabha 
Dutt* and Sheela Barse* cases. However, High Court did bear in mind the 
ratio of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and, therefore, while 
granting permission to interview the undertrial prisoners it modified the 
C blanket order passed by the Sessions Judge putting such restrictions and 
conditions as contained in the impugned order. No grievance, therefore, can 
be made to the impugned order of the High Court. However, the interview 
which the press would take will be regulated by the provisions contained in 
Jail Manuals and, therefore, the Jail Aut'1orities can modulate the same in 
accordance with the provisions contained in the Jail Mano.ti. [609-A-B-C-D) 
D 
Smt. Prabha Dutt. v. Union of India and Ors., [1982] 1 Supreme Court 
Cases 1 and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 4 Supreme Court 
Cases 373, referred to. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
718of1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.96 of the Delhi High Court in 
Cr!. M. No.2675of1995. 
· 
T.C. Sharma, R.N. Verma (A.K. Sharma) and B. Krishna Prasad for the 
Appellant. 
Sushi! Salwan, Sunil Gupta, Pramod Dayal and Piyush Sharma for the 
Respondents. 
· 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK. J. Competing rights, namely, right of press to interview 
a prisoner in jail and right of jail authorities prohibiting such interview arise 
for consideration in the present appeal. One Babloo Srivastava, who is in 
judicial custody and is being tried for offence under Section 302 read with 
H Section 1208 had been lodged in Tihar Jail. The news magazine 'India Today' 
STATE v. C.J. JOSHI [PATTANAIK, J.] 
607 
moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi seeking A 
pennission to interview the under-trial prisoner in jail. The learned Sessions 
Judge by his order dated 6.11.95 granted the permission 

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