Once FIR Is Quashed, It Is Duty Of Press To Delete Case-Related News Articles: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday observed that once an FIR is quashed, news articles related to it should be deleted by the press as continuous circulation could potentially harm the goodwill of the person against whom the FIR was filed. However, the court did not pass any direction for deletion of the news articles at this stage.

The observations were made by a bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice NV Anjaria during the hearing of an appeal filed by an NRI businessman. In 2020, an FIR had been filed against him and five others. T

The FIR was lodged by a 30-year-old chemicals businessman for alleged cheating of Rs 3.55 crore on the pretext of selling him gold. The accused also had allegedly taken his Porche Cayenne SUV, worth Rs 1.5 crore, by forcing him to sign the TO form and bills and challans for delivery of gold. It was also reported by one news organisation that the appellant was "involved in the business of havala and cricket betting."

However, the case was later quashed by the court. Since the articles continued to remain online, linking him to criminal allegations, he moved to the High Court seeking a direction to the private respondents, including Google, Indian Express, Times Of India, And D.B. Corporation Limited (Digital Business), to remove the URLs and contents of the articles related to the quashed FIR.

A single bench in February 2022 had dismissed the writ petition, saying that no writ can be issued to the private respondents and the disputed questions of facts may require to be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings.

During the hearing on Thursday, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal initially suggested that the appellant should go to a civil court where he will be able to claim damages as well. However, advocate Virat G Popat, representing the appellant, contended that at the current stage he is seeking an effective and an expeditious relief.

While addressing a counsel representing the respondents, Justice Agarwal said:  

“If the person is acquitted in the criminal case, you should delete those articles. That ends the matter.”

The court then questioned advocate KM Antani, appearing on behalf of Times of India, as to why the respondents cannot delete the articles, to which he responded by saying, “What has happened is, initially an article was there in the newspapers that indicated that there is an offence registered against him. Thereafter the FIR came to be quashed by this Honourable court. Subsequently an article was published in the newspaper which said that the original offence is now quashed.”

“That is in the nature of clarification. But the previous article where you have stated you have published some criminal case has been lodged against him - that criminal case is not existing as on date. Why can't you delete that article? Where is the technical issue?”, Justice Agarwal asked.

Advocate Antani contended that the court should consider the freedom of the press before passing any order.

Justice Agarwal responded,

“When you argue about freedom of press, the press can't expect [everyone] to read both the articles simultaneously. If the article which shows that a criminal case is lodged against him, that is visible to the public, anyone may read that article only and may not read the subsequent article or clarification.”

“So, once the case is quashed, then it is the duty of the press to delete that. Because if there is a freedom with the press, then there's required to be transparency in the press as well. You are accountable for whatever you publish for the public,” the court added.

Chief Justice Agarwal said that this is an issue which can be easily resolved. Advocate Antani assured the bench that he will put the same before his client and see if they are agreeable to it. Justice Agarwal said, “Please do, otherwise we will bring it to the arena of right to privacy”

“Once FIR is quashed, nothing remains. Once that article is circulating or visible, that article gives the impression that there is a criminal case pending against a person. He may be a businessman, he may be a service person, but his goodwill is harmed by this act of the press, and press cannot seek any kind of immunity in this kind of matter,” the court added.

The Court has now fixed the matter for August 07 while giving the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute themselves.

Case Title: RPR Vs. Union Of India And Others Letters Patent Appeal - No. 192 Of 2022 In R/Sca/1843/2022