Freedom Of Press Can't Be Curbed By Gag Order, But Juvenile's Identity Must Be Protected: Delhi High Court In Dwarka SUV Crash Case

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered non disclosure of the identity of the 17 year old minor accused in relation to the recent SUV accident in Dwarka which claimed the life of a 23 year old.

“The respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 (Union of India, Press Council of India and Press Trust of India) and those under them are restrained from disclosing the record of the child for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise of the juvenile accused in relation to the FIR till the next date of hearing,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed.

The plea was moved by the minor's father seeking a direction to prohibit disclosure of his son's identity in terms of Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, as well as to restrain the media from reporting the matter citing them to be running a “media trial.”

The counsel appearing for the father said that all the news channels and publications were showing the face of the minor, his name and other identity details were disclosed and that the family was under constant threat.

He said that the media should be restrained not to publish the name and identity of his son.

At the outset, Justice Banerjee said that what the father was asking was a “gag order” which cannot be passed, underscoring that journalism and freedom of press cannot be curbed.

“Under what provision can they be barred? Journalism and freedom of press cannot be curbed. Only issue is to what extent?… there is no rule which says journalism and right to press has to be barred,” the judge remarked.

The Court also remarked that while the grievance regarding disclosure of the minor's identity appeared to be genuine in view of Section 74 of JJ Act, a gag order barring media cannot be passed, especially in a writ petition.

“I am in agreement with the submission that there has to be control. The only thing I am talking about is the territory in which it has to be controlled and the subjective reaction so that there is no boomerang or outburst. You are asking for complete gag… your prayers are beyond what you are arguing. You are asking for a gag order. It means you are asking don't use my name, don't talk about me in any form of media. That cannot be possible,” the judge remarked.

The Court also observed that the writ petition was not maintainable against the private individuals, for which appropriate remedy is available in law.

The father's counsel then said that his primary grievance was qua compliance of Section 74 of JJ Act and was not pressing reliefs against private entities.

The counsel appearing for the Delhi Police said that though nothing has been alleged against them, he shall file a status report if required

The Court then issued notice in the plea and listed it for hearing on July 09.

Title: NARENDER KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS