MODALI ESWARA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Public Interest Litigation petitioner, in effect, seeks a direction against the respondents that they should not share the progress or material which came to light during investigation of crime No.R.C.No.19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad, dated 17.08.2011, with electronic or print media in any other manner, except release through press notes as per C.B.I. Manual. We have heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. Cases for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel would base his submissions in support of the prayer aforesaid by placing strong reliance upon various news reports appearing in different print media, which are appended to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel contends that while investigating the aforesaid crime, the details of investigation including steps which the investigating agency is taking and the one it would take in future, are being selectively leaked and disclosed to the electronic and print media as is evident from the various press reports. Learned Counsel submits that the investigation undertaken under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. is required to be completed without unnecessary delay and the police officers are required to forward the report to the Magistrate concerned for further action under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that on account of the selective leaks the reputed industrial houses have restricted or stopped investing in the State and an atmosphere of witch hunting prevails. He also contends that C.B.I. manual contains instructions to be followed relating to public information and media publicity of the C.B.I. work in order to ensure that information is released to the press or media. Therefore, the briefing of media on investigation is regulated by the guidelines under the manual which are quoted in para 19 of the affidavit. He further submits that contrary thereto every day briefing by respondent No. 3 shows undue haste in going to press and over enthusiasm which has effected development and investments in the State. He, therefore, seeks a direction that investigation updates be released to the print and electronic media as per the C.B.I. manual, referred to above, whereby the right of privacy of persons who are described as suspects by press would be protected. He has placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Khatri and others v. State of Bihar and others1 as well as Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and others v. Union of India and others.2

(3.) Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. cases took notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and emphatically denied that there is any leakage of information as contended by the petitioner by either of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He contended that what is appearing in the electronic and print media is the news bytes by the reporters and not on account of any information divulged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the press or electronic media.