Fair Reporting Of FIR Not 'Media Trial'; Press Acts As Watchdog Of Democracy: Sikkim High Court
The Sikkim High Court has held that fair and accurate reporting of the registration of an FIR, without sensationalism or prejudgment, cannot be termed as a “media trial.” It remarked that reporting on criminal proceedings is the role of the press as the fourth pillar of democracy and is a part of the media's duty as a public watchdog. The Court further clarified that such...
The Sikkim High Court has held that fair and accurate reporting of the registration of an FIR, without sensationalism or prejudgment, cannot be termed as a “media trial.”
It remarked that reporting on criminal proceedings is the role of the press as the fourth pillar of democracy and is a part of the media's duty as a public watchdog.
The Court further clarified that such reportage, particularly when it does not disclose the identity of victims does not call for judicial restraint or sanctions.
Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan stated that:“The press and the media is the fourth pillar of democracy which should always be alert as a watch dog of our society. Reporting a crime is part of their duty. Fair and accurate reporting of the factum of lodging of the FIR against the accused person without disclosing the name and identity of the victim and judging the act alleged cannot be termed as 'media trial' and thereafter seek sanctions against it.”
Background:
The petitioner, against whom an FIR had been registered under Sections 68, 75, 64, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, approached the Court alleging unlawful disclosure of investigative material by the police to the media.
He contended that Sikkim Chronicle published a news report regarding the registration of the FIR against the petitioner, including the petitioner's identity.
The petitioner sought action against the action of the state police, as they had disclosed his name and contents of the FIR to Sikkim Chronicle, with direction to remove all publications relating to the FIR naming him and his minor son and restrain Sikkim Chronicle from further publishing prejudicial, accusatory, or investigative content concerning the petitioner during the pendency of investigation and trial.
The High Court stated that there is no legal bar on disclosure of the contents of an FIR or the identity of an accused and accepting the contentions of the petitioner would would defeat the very purpose of making FIRs publicly accessible.
The Court reiterated that “under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872” it has been defineed that the FIR is a public document.
The Court remarked that the powers of restricting publication should be exercised cautiously and a decision should be taken on the facts of each case.
With respect to the petitioner's minor son, the Court found that there was no unlawful disclosure, as the said communication seems like a mature effort of the petitioner's son to raise his father's defence before the public.
Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Name: Rabden Sherpa V/s State of Sikkim & Ors.
Case No.: W.P .(C) No.07 of 2026
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Kant Jha
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.K. Chettri