Court affirms that FIR is a public document; media's disclosure doesn't infringe privacy rights, says Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan.
In a significant ruling, the Sikkim High Court has dismissed a petition by Rabden Sherpa, who sought to prevent the media from disclosing the contents of a First Information Report (FIR) filed against him. Presiding over the case, Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ruled that an FIR is a public document and its contents can be disclosed by the press as part of its duty to report matters of public record.
Rabden Sherpa, investigated under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, filed a writ petition claiming that the publication of the FIR's details by Sikkim Chronicle violated his right to privacy. He argued that the State Police's disclosure of his name and FIR content to the media infringed upon his privacy rights, especially concerning his minor son.
Justice Pradhan, however, highlighted that the FIR, once registered, becomes a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The court noted that the right to privacy does not subsist once the FIR is part of the public record, making it a legitimate subject for press comment.
The judgment emphasized the role of the media as the fourth pillar of democracy, which has the duty to report crimes accurately. It also clarified that fair and accurate reporting of FIR contents does not equate to a media trial, provided it respects the dignity and privacy of the victim.
Sherpa's petition also sought the removal of publications concerning the FIR by Sikkim Chronicle and to restrain further publications during the investigation. The court, however, found no legal basis to restrict the media from reporting on public records, aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent in the Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, which mandates the uploading of FIRs on public websites, barring sensitive cases.
On the issue of the petitioner's minor son's name being disclosed, the court observed that the minor had voluntarily communicated with Sikkim Chronicle, consenting to the publication of his side of the story. Hence, there was no infringement of privacy rights in this context.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the judgment reiterated that any publication based on public records does not violate privacy rights. The court concluded that the reportage by Sikkim Chronicle was fair and within legal rights, urging restraint from dragging the media into courts without substantive grounds.
The petition was dismissed, affirming the media's role in promoting transparency and ensuring an informed citizenry, all while balancing the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
Bottom Line:
FIR is a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and its contents can be disclosed by the press if the information is based on public records.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a), Article 21.
Rabden Sherpa v. State of Sikkim, (Sikkim) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883357
