PRABHA DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times. Smt. Prabha Dutt, asking for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents, particularly the Delhi Administration and the Superintendent of Jail, Tihar to allow her to interview two convicts Billa and Ranga who are under a sentence of death. We may mention that the aforesaid two prisoners have been sentenced to death for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and the petitions filed by them to the President of India for commutation of the sentence are reported to have been rejected by the President recently.

(2.) Before considering the merits of the application. we would like to observe that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom or the Press, is not an absolute right, not indeed does it confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. But in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is not the right to express any particular view or opinion but the right to means of information through the medium of an interview of the two prisoners who are sentenced to death. No such right can be claimed by the Press unless in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such for example, as there is under Section 161 (2) of the Criminal P. C. No data has been made available to us on the basis of which it would be possible for us to say that the two prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed. We have, however, no data either that they are not willing to be interviewed and, indeed, if it were to appear that the prisoners themselves do not desire to be interviewed, it would have been impossible for us to pass an order directing that the petitioner should be allowed to interview them. While we are on this aspect of the matter, we cannot overlook that the petitioner has been asking for permission to interview the prisoners right since the President of India rejected the petitions filed by the prisoners for commutation of their sentence to imprisonment for life. We are proceeding on the basis that the prisoners are willing to be interviewed.

(3.) Rule 549 (4) of the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides that every prisoner under a sentence of death shall be allowed such interviews and other communications with his relatives, friends and legal advisers as the Superintendent thinks reasonable. Journalists or newspapermen are not expressly referred to in clause (4) but that does not mean that they can always and without good reasons be denied the opportunity to interview a condemned prisoner. If in any given case, there are weighty reasons, for doing so, which we expect will always be recorded in writing, the interview may appropriately be refused. But no such consideration has been pressed upon us and therefore we do not see any reason why newspapermen who can broadly, and we suppose without great fear of contradiction, be termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an interview under clause (4) of R. 549.