Freedom of the Press Ends Where It Invades the Rights of Other Citizens. No Citizen is Under Any Legal Obligation to Answer Questions or Grant an Interview Against His Will. The Press Has No Right to Exercise Its Freedom of Speech and Expression in a Manner that Invades the Rights of Other Citizens or Violates Public Order, Decency and Morality. No Right to Interview Any Person Can Be Claimed by the Press Unless the Person Sought to be Interviewed is Willing to be Interviewed — Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6.

No person including reporters  Associations cannot condemn the MP while shielding the reporter.

If a Reporter Has Also Violated the Law, Selective Condemnation Amounts to Double Standards. Any Person or Association that Knowingly Instigates, Intentionally Aids, Encourages, Justifies or Protects the Commission of an Offence by the said reporter May Attract Liability for Abetment and Other Applicable Offences in Accordance with Law.

By

Adv. Ayush Tiwari,  and  Sh. Mursalin Sheikh-  ( Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association of India (ILHRAI))

Journalists have no legal right to chase an unwilling person, obstruct his movement, repeatedly thrust microphones before him, or subject him to relentless questioning after he has clearly declined to speak. Such conduct may attract criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, civil liability for violation of fundamental rights—including the rights to privacy, dignity and peaceful life—and, in an appropriate case, proceedings for civil contempt under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disregard of binding directions declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The concerned reporters, media houses and other responsible persons may also be liable to pay compensation for infringement of fundamental rights and other legally protected rights, depending on the facts established before the competent court.

Neither the freedom of the press nor the freedom of speech includes a licence to harass, intimidate, provoke or unlawfully interfere with the rights and liberties of another citizen.  

 The recent controversy involving Member of Parliament Mr. Sanjay Dina Patil and certain television reporters has generated extensive public debate. Much of the discussion has focused on the conduct of the Member of Parliament. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to an equally important legal question—whether the conduct of the reporters also deserves scrutiny under the Constitution, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, legal accountability cannot be one-sided. If a public representative loses his temper or commits any offence, he must answer before the law. Equally, if journalists disregard constitutional limitations and binding judicial precedents while pursuing a story, they too remain fully accountable under the same law. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. There cannot be one standard for politicians and another for journalists.

Numerous public statements and media reports have proceeded on the assumption that the Member of Parliament alone is legally blameworthy. If, however, the factual allegations are correct that the reporters continued to follow him, repeatedly questioned him, obstructed his movement, ignored his clear request to leave, and persisted in seeking a reaction after he had unequivocally declined to speak, then the conduct of the reporters also raises important constitutional and legal issues which cannot be ignored merely because they belong to the media.

The purpose of this article is not to pronounce anyone guilty. Guilt or innocence can be determined only by a competent court on the basis of evidence. The object of this article is to highlight the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6, and to demonstrate that freedom of the press does not include a legal right to compel answers, force interviews, harass an unwilling person, obstruct his movement, or invade his constitutional rights. The Constitution protects a free press, but it protects an equally important value—a free citizen. The rule of law demands that both principles receive equal respect.

Unfortunately, public discourse often falls into the trap of selective outrage—condemning one side while remaining silent about the legal obligations of the other. Such one-sided analysis neither serves journalism nor strengthens the rule of law. A fair legal assessment must examine the conduct of all participants against the same constitutional standards, irrespective of their profession, office or political affiliation.

The freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. A free and independent media plays a vital role in ensuring transparency, accountability and informed public debate. However, the Constitution of India has never recognised the freedom of the press as an unlimited or absolute licence to invade the rights and liberties of other citizens. Like every other constitutional freedom, it carries corresponding duties and responsibilities.

In recent years, an alarming practice has emerged in which some television reporters and media personnel surround public figures, politicians, lawyers, judges, businessmen and even ordinary citizens, relentlessly chasing them with cameras and microphones, repeatedly asking questions after they have clearly declined to respond, obstructing their movement, creating an atmosphere of intimidation and attempting to provoke an emotional or aggressive reaction merely to generate sensational news footage. Such conduct has no protection under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Has Settled the Law

The legal position was authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabha Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 6.

The Supreme Court categorically held:

“The Press is not entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which invades the rights of other citizens…”

The Court further declared:

“No right to interview any person can be claimed by the Press, unless in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed.”

The Supreme Court also made the position absolutely clear by observing:

“The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press.”

These observations leave no room for doubt. A citizen has an absolute legal right to decline an interview. Equally, every journalist has a corresponding legal duty to respect that decision.

Once a person clearly states—

• “I do not wish to answer.”
• “No comments.”
• “Please leave.”
• “Go away.”
• “I do not want to give an interview.”

—the matter must ordinarily end there. The Constitution does not authorise journalists to continue following the person, block his path, thrust microphones before his face, surround him, repeatedly ask the same questions or deliberately provoke him into making an angry statement.

Freedom of the Press Does Not Override Fundamental Rights

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of the press is recognised as flowing from this constitutional guarantee.

However, this freedom exists side by side with other equally important constitutional rights.

Every citizen enjoys:

• the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21;
• the right to live with dignity;
• the right to privacy;
• the right to peaceful movement;
• the right to reputation;
• and the right to be left alone when he chooses not to speak.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right.

Similarly, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, the Supreme Court recognised the citizen’s right to safeguard his private life against unauthorised intrusion.

The freedom of the media cannot be exercised by violating these constitutional guarantees.

No Journalist Enjoys Special Privileges

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that journalists occupy a privileged legal position.

In Sewak Ram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, (1981) 3 SCC 208, the Supreme Court made it clear that journalists possess no special immunity unavailable to ordinary citizens.

The press is protected by the Constitution.

It is not placed above the Constitution.

Journalists are equally bound by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, civil law, constitutional limitations and judicial precedents.

Running Behind an Unwilling Person Is Not Journalism

If a person has clearly refused to answer questions, journalists cannot lawfully:

• chase him;
• repeatedly follow him;
• obstruct his movement;
• surround him with cameras;
• thrust microphones into his face;
• continue asking the same questions after refusal;
• deliberately provoke him into anger;
• create circumstances intended to extract sensational footage.

Such conduct ceases to be journalism.

It becomes a question of legality.

Depending upon the facts proved in each case, such conduct may attract provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to:

• wrongful restraint;
• criminal intimidation;
• stalking;
• intentional provocation likely to cause breach of peace;
• assault or use of criminal force, where applicable;
• unlawful obstruction;
• conspiracy or common intention, where multiple persons act together.

Whether a particular offence is made out will always depend upon the evidence and the statutory ingredients being satisfied.

Violation of Fundamental Rights May Give Rise to Civil Liability

Apart from criminal consequences, intrusive media conduct may amount to violation of constitutional rights.

Where an individual’s:

• privacy,
• dignity,
• reputation,
• peaceful life,
• personal liberty,
• or mental well-being

is unlawfully invaded, courts may award compensation and other civil remedies depending upon the facts established.

A media house cannot escape liability merely because the wrongful act was committed by its reporter during the course of employment. In an appropriate case, both the individual reporter and the media organisation may face civil consequences in accordance with law.

Disregard of Binding Supreme Court Law

Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding upon all courts, authorities and persons throughout India.

The principles laid down in Prabha Dutt are therefore not merely advisory observations.

They constitute binding declarations of law.

Accordingly, where a person has expressly declined to grant an interview, any deliberate and wilful continuation of coercive media conduct in disregard of the law declared by the Supreme Court may, in an appropriate case where the statutory requirements are satisfied, give rise to proceedings under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Whether contempt is made out would ultimately be for the competent court to determine on the facts of the particular case.

Responsible Journalism Strengthens Democracy

The Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct require journalists to maintain fairness, restraint, respect for privacy and professional responsibility.

Responsible journalism asks difficult questions.

It does not compel answers.

Responsible journalism exposes wrongdoing.

It does not manufacture confrontation.

Responsible journalism informs society.

It does not intimidate citizens.

The Rule of Law Applies Equally to Everyone

The constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 admits no exception for the media.

If a politician assaults a journalist, he is answerable before law.

Equally, if a journalist unlawfully harasses, intimidates, obstructs or violates the constitutional rights of a citizen, he too is answerable before law.

Neither public office nor media status creates immunity.

The rule of law demands equal accountability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has spoken in clear and unequivocal terms.

A citizen has no legal obligation to answer questions put by the press.

A journalist has no legal right to compel an interview.

Freedom of the press is indispensable to democracy, but it is not a licence to invade privacy, obstruct liberty, provoke confrontation or disregard the dignity of another citizen.

The Constitution protects a free press.

It also protects a free citizen.

The moment a person clearly says “I do not wish to speak,” the law requires that his decision be respected. Beyond that point, journalism must yield to constitutional liberty, and any further coercive conduct must be tested on the touchstone of the Constitution, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, civil law and the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The reporters’ associations which condemned MP Sanjay Dina Patil were duty-bound to first examine and condemn the alleged unlawful conduct of the reporter, if the facts show that the reporter continued to chase, obstruct, provoke or harass the MP despite his clear refusal to answer and request to leave.

Under Section 107 IPC, abetment includes not only direct instigation but also engaging in conspiracy or intentionally aiding the commission of an offence by any act or illegal omission. Therefore, if any association, office-bearer, media house or person knowingly supports, shields, encourages, justifies or facilitates such unlawful conduct, directly or indirectly, with knowledge of the offence and with the intention of protecting or promoting the offender, such conduct may amount to abetment and may attract prosecution and punishment in accordance with law.

As held in Raman Lal v. State 2001 Cr L J 800, conspiracy is generally proved from circumstantial evidence, conduct, acts and illegal omissions committed in furtherance of a common design. Once the common design or conspiracy is proved, the act of one conspirator may become the act of all, and every person who joins, aids, supports or acts in furtherance of the unlawful design becomes liable as per law.

Therefore, selective condemnation of only MP Sanjay Dina Patil, while suppressing or defending the alleged unlawful acts of the reporter, raises a serious question of double standards, intellectual dishonesty and possible legal complicity. Professional solidarity cannot become a shield for criminality. If the reporter committed an offence, those who intentionally aided, abetted, justified or protected such conduct must also face action under law.

Why This Article Has Become Necessary

According to the authors’ considered assessment, based upon the material and evidence examined by them, the recent controversy involving MP Sanjay Dina Patil is not merely about one isolated incident between a public representative and certain television reporters. It appears to reflect a larger and deeply disturbing pattern of selective reporting, one-sided narratives and unequal standards adopted by a section of the media.

The authors are of the considered opinion that certain reporters appear to have embarked upon a sustained campaign to portray MP Sanjay Dina Patil and leaders associated with the Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in a negative light, while simultaneously portraying leaders of the UBT faction in a comparatively favourable manner. According to the authors’ assessment, the reporting pattern, editorial choices, selective outrage and repeated omission to report comparable conduct by leaders of the opposite political camp indicate more than mere coincidence and raise serious questions regarding fairness, neutrality and journalistic objectivity.

The authors further note that although abusive, offensive and intemperate language allegedly used by certain political leaders, including Sanjay Raut, has repeatedly entered the public domain, sections of the media and some reporters’ associations have remained conspicuously silent or have failed to express comparable condemnation. In contrast, incidents involving leaders associated with the present State Government, particularly MP Sanjay Dina Patil and the Eknath Shinde faction, have often attracted immediate, extensive and sustained criticism. Such selective indignation, in the opinion of the authors, undermines public confidence in the neutrality and credibility of journalism.

More importantly, the authors find it disturbing that while numerous commentators hastened to declare the Member of Parliament morally or legally blameworthy, very few examined whether the conduct of the concerned reporters themselves deserved equal scrutiny under the Constitution, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabha Dutt v. Union of India. If the factual allegations are correct that the reporters continued to chase the Member of Parliament, obstructed his movement, repeatedly questioned him despite his clear refusal to answer and request to leave, and sought to provoke a reaction for media publicity, then the legal accountability of the reporters also becomes an equally important issue.

The purpose of this article is not to defend any political party or any individual. If MP Sanjay Dina Patil has committed any offence, he must face the consequences prescribed by law. Equally, if any reporter has violated the Constitution, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same law must apply to him. The Constitution does not recognise two standards of legality—one for politicians and another for journalists.

This article has therefore been written to present the correct constitutional and legal position, to counter one-sided legal narratives, and to reaffirm the foundational constitutional principle that justice cannot be selective, accountability cannot be one-sided, and the rule of law cannot be subordinated to political preferences or media narratives.