Patna High Court Restrains Media From Portraying Bihar Tender Scam Accused Rishu Shree As Guilty Before Trial
The Patna High Court has restrained print, electronic, digital and social media platforms from portraying Bihar contractor Rishu Shree as guilty in connection with the alleged tender scam being investigated by the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU). The Court observed that while media is free to report factual developments relating to the case, imputing criminal liability upon an accused before commencement of trial would undermine the right to a fair trial.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ansul was hearing a petition filed by Rishu Shree seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025.
The petitioner submitted that although the FIR had been registered in 2025, a raid was conducted at his residence only on May 27, 2026, following which he was arrested. It was argued that despite nothing incriminating being recovered during the search, extensive coverage of the case commenced across television channels, newspapers, online news portals and social media platforms. According to the petitioner, several media houses carried one-sided narratives and unverified allegations portraying him as guilty even before commencement of trial.
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that prime-time debates were conducted in which the petitioner was condemned and vilified without being afforded an opportunity to present his side. It was further contended that such reporting had the potential to influence public opinion, prejudice witnesses and create an atmosphere detrimental to a fair trial. Reliance was placed by the Petitioner on Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, wherein the Court had observed that trial by press or electronic media is antithetical to the rule of law.
The High Court noted that the issue was not confined to traditional media outlets. The Bench observed that social media platforms were also flooded with content declaring the petitioner guilty despite the fact that trial had not even commenced. The Court remarked:
“It is to be seen that these news items are not only in the mainline press or Television channels but the social media platforms are flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even initiation of the trial.”
Emphasising the importance of a fair trial, the Court observed that even a person accused of a serious offence cannot be deprived of constitutional protections merely because of the nature of the allegations. The Bench held:
“The petitioner may be accused of a serious case, his rights to get a fair trial would not be ousted by the magnitude of the allegation.”
The Court further observed that freedom of the press is subject to reasonable restrictions and that branding an accused as guilty before adjudication may amount to defamation and prejudging an issue pending before a court. The Bench observed:
“Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act. This is pre-judging the issue when the matter is subjudice.”
The Court also referred to the Government of India's media policy advisory for police authorities, which emphasises that information shared with the media should not hamper investigations or affect the legal rights of accused persons and victims. At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not inclined to impose a complete media gag. It noted:
“Having seen both sides of the coin, this court is clearly not in a view of media gag over the issue. However, the court would certainly direct for control over irresponsible reporting and imputation of guilt upon the petitioner without any initiation trial at all.”
Accordingly, the Court permitted fair and factual reporting of developments in the case but restrained all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms from describing the petitioner as guilty, portraying him as having committed the alleged offences, or publishing material purporting to determine his criminal liability.
The Court further directed that expressions such as “mastermind”, “scamster”, “kingpin” or similar descriptions conveying criminal responsibility shall not be used. It also restrained media outlets from conducting “media trials” based on alleged confessions, investigation material or unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined.
The Bench clarified that the directions would extend to online portals, video streaming services, podcasts, social media accounts, channels and other internet-based platforms.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 10, 2026.
Case Title: Rishu Shree v. State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32409 of 2026.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Ms. Nandita Rao assisted by Mr. Arshadeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Kumaresh Singh, Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Mr. Shruti, Mr. Anirvan Choudhary, Ms. Jyoti Prakash, and Mr. Sahil Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr.Arvind Kumar for SVU. Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh and Mr. Utsav for the ED.