Case Summary and Outcome

An Indian High Court dismissed a former Member of Parliament’s petition to prevent the publication of information on a foreign-exchange investigation against her. The MP believed that the law enforcement body responsible for investigating violations of foreign exchange laws had leaked the information to the media and approached the Court seeking an order prohibiting any further leaks on the grounds that her right to privacy had been violated. The Court examined the news articles that had been published and found that there were no discussions of the MP’s private life and that they adhered to media standards. It highlighted the role the media plays and that public figures have a heightened accountability to the public and stressed that courts are hesitant to restrict media publication unless there is clear harassment or invasions of privacy.

Facts

In 2024, the Indian Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an investigation against politician, Mahua Moitra, for violating the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). Moitra is a former Member of Parliament (MP) from West Bengal and also a member of the All India Trinamool Congress Party (AITC). The ED is “a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offence of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws”.

On February 14 2024, the ED issued a summons to Moitra to appear physically at its office and present documents. On February 16, 2024, Moitra received the summons at her current address. The news regarding these summons was covered by the press soon after they were issued. Moitra requested an extension of three weeks to comply with the summons but this was rejected and fresh summons were issued against her.

Moitra approached the High Court of Delhi alleging that the ED leaked the news of the investigation to the press. She requested the court prohibit the ED from leaking any information regarding the case to the print and electronic media. She named the Union of India and Asia News International (ANI) as co-defendants in the suit.

Decision Overview

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the High Court of Delhi delivered the judgment. The central issue before the court was whether the media should be restrained from publishing information related to the investigation in Moitra’s case.

Moitra argued that the ED leaked sensitive information related to the ongoing investigation to the print and digital media which included information regarding the issuance of summons, the extension of time sought by her and the ED’s rejection thereof and the issuance of fresh summons against her. She submitted that the media coverage of potential allegations against her violated her right to privacy, right to dignity and the right to fair investigation. Moitra placed reliance on Vijay Nair v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Disha A. Ravi v. State of (NCT of Delhi) and highlighted the government’s Advisory on Media Policy dated April 1, 2010 (the Advisory) which provides guidelines for investigating agencies in the ways they can share information with the public through media and “lays down the precautions that need to be taken to ensure that only authentic and appropriate information is shared without hampering the process of investigation and issues of legal/privacy rights of the accused/victims and matters of strategic and national interest.” [para. 9]

The ED denied leaking any sensitive information to the press and submitted that they had followed the Advisory. 

The Indian government submitted that they had adhered to the Advisory. 

The ANI emphasized that members of the electronic media have a self-regulatory mechanism, a Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards which address “neutrality and the privacy of the persons involved” in reporting. [para. 11] It submitted that their news report was based on sourced information and facts stated in public records and argued that the public has a right to know about the facts of the investigation as Moitra is a former Member of Parliament and a public personality.

The Court examined whether any order needed to be issued to the ED, the government and news agencies regarding the dissemination of information related to the investigation. In doing so, the Court discussed the debate between the rights to privacy of the accused and to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, including freedom of the press and citizens’ rights to be informed. The Court highlighted the importance of media in strengthening “public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that takes place in a democratic set-up”. [para. 12] The Court noted the judiciary’s reluctance to restrict the dissemination of news and referred to Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 where the Indian Supreme Court had considered freedom of press to be at the “heart of social and political intercourse” and had highlighted the role of the press in educating the public, advancing public interest and holding the government accountable. [para. 12]

The Court reinforced citizens’ right to be informed about news regarding public figures and noted that public figures have greater accountability to the public and therefore are subjected to a “higher level of public gaze and scrutiny” [para. 13]. It relied on Kailash Gahlot v. Vijender Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine Del 679] to reinforce that the government or court orders cannot restrict publications unnecessarily unless they “amount to harassment and invasion” in the private or family life of the public figure. [para. 14] The Court also referred to Multi Screen Media v. Vidya Dhar [2013 SCC OnLine Del 842] in which the Supreme Court had observed that “if a public figure is involved in a litigation and the matter pertains to the affairs of the State, the right of the public to be informed……would have to be given primacy over the interest of the individual.” [para. 13] The Court held that individuals enjoying perks of the State had higher accountability to the general public.

In applying these principles to the present case, the Court recognized that Moitra is a former elected Member of Parliament and a public figure.

The Court noted the existence of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and self-regulatory mechanisms by the members of electronic media, and that news agencies are already bound by the Code. In acknowledging the ED’s and the government’s statement that they had “scrupulously followed” the Advisory, the Court noted that the guidelines balanced the dissemination of “authentic and appropriate information” by investigating agencies with the “legal/privacy rights of the accused/victims”. [paras. 9 and 10] The Advisory includes guidelines like sharing of information by designated officers, restricting the briefing to essential facts, prohibition of sharing speculative or unconfirmed information, and restriction from sharing unnecessary information or piecemeal information daily and mandates investigating agencies to fully comply with the legal provisions and Court guidelines. 

After perusing the news articles, the Court concluded that they did not discuss Moitra’s private life or invade her privacy but merely revealed facts related to the ongoing investigation against her. The Court did not see the news articles as impacting the impartiality of the investigation or prejudicing the trial.

Therefore, the Court refused to issue any gag order against the media and observed that the Advisory was being followed by the investigation agency. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Moitra’s petition.