Veeramani POCSO Case: Media Houses Oppose Injunction Before Madras High Court, Say Informed Debate On Child Assault Cases Can Further Justice

The submissions were made before Justice V Lakshminarayanan, urging the court to modify an earlier interim order restraining media houses from publicising any videos or discussing the facts of the case.

Jethmalani submitted that it was offensive to suggest that the channels were discussing the issue only for publicity. He added that in foreign countries, it was normal for news channels to expose child assault cases, and in our country also, the press should have the freedom to discuss such issues.

“Judiciary and the press should work in tandem in these kinds of offences. It's offensive to say that channels are doing it for TRP. It's happening in other countries, child assault cases are being exposed. What's the issue in our country…When you have an educated and informed debate on what happened, what went wrong, it can only help the cause of justice and truth,” Jethmalani argued.

Jethmalani also argued that it would not be right to say that publishing materials in connection with the crime would deter other child victims from coming forward and testifying before the investigation agencies and courts. He submitted that in fact, such publication should only encourage the parents of the victims to come forward and talk about the incident, so that the crime is exposed.

“The argument that my publication would deter other children should be rejected. In fact, the courage of one child, a brave girl coming forward should only encourage other children to come forward. The argument that it will deter others is redundant. It is a healthy practice to bring this forward. Most parents of a child will be encouraged, “Jethmalani said.

The court was hearing an application filed by Tulir, an NGO working with the child assault victims, seeking a John doe order to prevent India Today channel, Republic TV channel, Sathyam TV, and others from publicising the video recordings in connection with the POCSO case, which constitute Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM), and to protect the identity and privacy of the victims of the case.

The NGO had argued that the channels had been debating the issue and had even telecasted video recordings in connection with the crime, that carried materials which could identify the victim children. The NGO argued that such publishing of materials would deter other victims from coming forward and deposing about the crime and would also affect the dignity and safety of the victims whose information is being publicised.

Jethmalani argued that his client, Republic TV, had not publicised any material that contained details of the victims. He argued that the channel had only shown video that was already available in the public domain and had only published a photo of the accused. He vehemently argued that the channel was at the forefront of protecting child victims and unearthing crime against children.

“My client's role in this area of law has been exemplary. In this specific case, we've been at the forefront for protection of child victims and for unearthing crimes against children. Nothing we have done is against the law. One of the allegations is that we have inadvertently showed videos. What we have done is, we have obtained from public domain. We published a photo of the accused and very faintly in the background is a very blurred image. It does not reveal the identity of the victim. The features and blackened,” Jethmalani submitted.

Senior Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, appearing for India Today channel, also submitted that the channel had not shown any videos showing the identity of the victims and had, in no manner, violated Section 23 of the POCSO Act. It was argued that there was no question of blurring the victim's identity as the channel had not even shown the video itself.

The court at this juncture pointed out that the petitioner had submitted videos telecast by the channel which showed the accused and the victim in a blurred manner. The court thus said that it would not be proper for the channel to say that it had not shown the video itself. The senior counsel then sought time to seek clarification.

Meanwhile, the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that SIT was investigating all angles in the case, including that of alleged cover-up by certain officials. He submitted that four FIRs had already been registered in the case and three more victims had come forward to give complaints.

The court decided to continue hearing the case tomorrow (October 7), and adjourned the hearing.