'Await Guidelines On Press Briefings' : Supreme Court Disposes Plea To Regulate Social Media Postings By Police

The Supreme Court on Friday disposed of a petition seeking guidelines on the posting of images of accused persons by the police on their official social media accounts.

The Court noted that in another recent PUCL case, directions were issued to the States to frame guidelines for media briefings by the police. The Court observed that those guidelines could cover social media postings as well. The Court therefore suggested that the petitioner await the outcome of the guidelines.

Taking the Court's suggestion, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, withdrew the matter. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.

During the hearing, Sankaranarayanan flagged the trend of police posting the images of accused persons being handcuffed, tied by ropes, paraded, forced to kneel etc. Apart from causing an affront to personal dignity, such images also add to the public bias against the accused, and can contribute to a social media trial, he argued.

The petitioner particularly raised concerns over the social media accounts of Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Assam and Chhattisgarh police. These States were named as respondents.

During the brief hearing, the bench discussed the risks posed by media trials and unregulated social media trends.

Justice Bagchi observed that the present issue may require broader consideration extending beyond the immediate question raised in the petition. He explained:

"We understand that police briefings to the media must be responsible and reasonable, and must not be exposed to bias, because in a criminal justice system, the investigating agency is neither pro-victim nor pro-accused."

Justice Bagchi further highlighted the concern of police authorities getting carried away during media briefings and the emerging risks of media trials in pending criminal cases. He remarked:

"It is the duty of the investigating agency to conduct an independent investigation to unravel the truth. To ensure that a balance is maintained, the manual is a very positive step. The manual will restrain the police from making over-enthusiastic statements which may be inferable with regard to matters that are subject to adjudication in a forensic and dispassionate manner. However, what happens when such an exercise, though restraining the police, is not able to remove the cloud or the vitiated atmosphere created through third-party indulgence, where sections of the media go on spinning narratives either way, resulting in a media trial that completely subverts the rule of law."

Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the issue of "media trial" was first addressed by the Supreme Court in the Sahara v. SEBI decision of 2012. Justice Bagchi responded that the Sahara v. SEBI judgment was rendered in "more innocent times", as social media was not as prevalent then.

The Chief Justice also remarked that nowadays, when people witness a road accident or see a person dying on the street, they are more likely to record the incident rather than assist the victim.

In response, the counsel submitted:

"My Lords know that if we attempt to draw the attention of the media to regulate themselves, it often leads to a conflagration. Your Lordships are aware that Article 19(1)(a) is immediately invoked."

The bench observed that mainstream media is, by and large, acting responsibly, particularly since regulatory mechanisms such as the National Broadcasting Standards Authority are in place to oversee television channels.

The Senior Advocate further submitted:

"The problem today is that everyone who has a phone is effectively a media person. So how do we regulate that? Every person who is a witness can act as media, and then the situation gets out of hand. That is why the narrow focus of this petition is only on the police."

The bench suggested that Sankaranarayanan consider expanding the scope of the matter to address the need for a coordinated mechanism involving all three stakeholders, namely the police, social media platforms, and the general public.

Virtual Tabloids Acting As 'Blackmailers', Another Form Of 'Digital Arrest': CJI & SG Discuss

When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was asked to express his views, he stressed that the media "should not be irresponsible". He submitted that while mainstream media is generally regulated and accountable, certain virtual tabloids operating on digital platforms were acting as blackmailers.

He stated:

"The difficulty is that we have mainstream media which is, by and large, responsible. However, we also have tabloids operating solely on virtual platforms who function as blackmailers. In fact, calling them blackmailers may even be an understatement."

The Chief Justice added that such acts of online blackmailing were, in his view, akin to a form of digital arrest, though the law does not presently recognise it as a specific penal offence.

"If you ask me, it is another form of digital arrest, unfortunately still not being treated as a crime."

Ultimately, the bench permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea, granting liberty to file a fresh and more comprehensive petition addressing the broader issues discussed during the hearing.

Case Details: HEMENDRA PATEL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 311/2026