New Delhi: Underlining that freedom of the press cannot be curtailed without any legal basis, Delhi High Court on Friday refused to impose a blanket gag order on media reporting in connection with the Dwarka road accident case. The court underscored that freedom of expression and of the press are integral to a democratic society while hearing a plea by the father of the juvenile accused in the accident that claimed the life of a 23-year-old motorcyclist, seeking restrictions on media coverage of the case.
“On what basis are you asking for a complete gag order? There is no rule which says journalism and right to press has to be barred,” Justice Saurabh Bannerji orally observed. The father contended that the media was pursuing the minor and his family and subjecting them to harassment through extensive coverage. This resulted in him receiving hateful messages and also made him fearful for the safety of the family. The court, however, issued notice to the Centre and Press Council of India among others on the plea and ordered that no information capable of revealing the minor’s identity or portraying his character should be disclosed or published in any manner. According to allegations raised by the victim’s mother, the minor was filming social media reels while speeding moments before the collision. The minor, who allegedly doesn’t have a valid driving licence, was apprehended and produced before the juvenile justice board, which sent him to an observation home. He was later granted interim bail on Feb 10 to enable him to appear for his Class X board exams. Delhi Police since registered a case under sections 281 (rash driving), 106(1) (causing death by negligence) and 125(a) (act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the BNS. The minor’s father was detained during the investigation and later released, with police indicating that he would be named in the chargesheet under relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Initially, investigators sought to try him as an adult, as he got his age recorded as 19 years in the FIR. However, identification documents later submitted by the family’s lawyer established that he was a minor.
