Police used sexual assault case to seize journalists’ phones, says Madras High Court, slamming ‘assault on press’

The lawsuit stemmed from a petition filed by 4 journalists challenging the SIT’s actions. The journalists alleged that their smartphones were seized and they were subjected to a barrage of intrusive questions astir their idiosyncratic and nonrecreational lives, including demands to disclose their sources successful transportation with the “leak” of the FIR successful the case.

The tribunal reaffirmed that journalists are protected from specified intrusions nether the Press Council Act. “Even then, the probe bureau compelled the petitioners to nutrient their devices and seized the same. In fact, those devices had nary accusation relating to the registration of FIR and uploading the FIR successful the nationalist domain,” the bid said, referring to the petition, which stated that the journalists “were besides threatened that mobile telephone volition beryllium seized unless they supply screenshot of quality items circulated by 1 of the transgression reporters.”

The SIT was investigating the alleged intersexual battle of an engineering pupil astatine Anna University. As portion of its probe, it summoned journalists, directing them to reply much than 50 questions – galore of which, the tribunal noted, were unrelated to the case. The reporters were asked to disclose details astir their overseas trips, assets owned by them and their household members, and different idiosyncratic matters.

After reviewing the questionnaire, Justice Ilanthiraiyan said, “Perusal of the questionnaire served connected the petitioners revealed that astir of the questions were recovered successful narration to the backstage accusation astir the petitioners and it is simply a wide usurpation of the close to privateness guaranteed nether the Constitution of India. The backstage accusation specified arsenic their societal media handles, idiosyncratic details of their friends, relatives, kith and kin, their confidential sources, etc. Privacy is an indispensable portion of quality dignity and idiosyncratic liberty, which protects an individual’s state to marque choices and power their life.”

The tribunal noted that the SIT’s actions were disproportionate and unwarranted and that the investigators had overstepped their ineligible authority.

One of the cardinal aspects of the lawsuit revolved astir the alleged “leak” of the FIR successful a delicate intersexual battle case, which the SIT claimed had necessitated the seizure of journalists’ devices. However, the tribunal recovered glaring omissions successful the SIT’s approach.

“During the investigation, the SIT did not adjacent inquire astir the writer of the FIR and the persons who had uploaded the FIR to the authoritative portal. Further, they were not issued immoderate summons… It is precise unfortunate to authorities that the constabulary idiosyncratic simply said that owed to method glitches portion registering the FIR, the FIR was uploaded to the police’s authoritative web portal. Therefore, without adjacent examining the idiosyncratic who had uploaded the FIR to the authoritative website and the idiosyncratic who authored the FIR, they enquired the petitioners. Further, without immoderate authorisation of the writer of the FIR, the FIR could not person been uploaded to the authoritative website,” the bid said.

While the bid suggests that the existent work for the leak whitethorn prevarication wrong constabulary ranks, it recognised the chilling effect of the SIT’s actions connected property state and directed the SIT to reason its enquiry into the journalists by February 10, instrumentality their phones and different seized devices, and not question them astir their idiosyncratic details. The tribunal besides asked the SIT to grounds the minutes of the enquiry successful the wide diary and lawsuit diary. The bid besides restrained the SIT from harassing the petitioners successful the guise of an enquiry and barred them from asking irrelevant questions unrelated to the FIR leak.

Last month, the Supreme Court had stayed the Madras High Court absorption seeking a departmental enquiry into the leak of the FIR. However, the apical tribunal termed “the leak” a terrible breach of the survivor’s rights. The apex tribunal was proceeding an entreaty filed by the Tamil Nadu government.

The lawsuit had rocked the authorities successful December and the probe yet culminated successful the apprehension of a roadside biryani vendor, 37-year-old Gnanasekaran. The BJP and AIADMK had led the Opposition’s onslaught connected Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK, claiming the accused had governmental links – a complaint the DMK denied.