A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1184

PRABHA DUTT

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

November 7, 1981

[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., A. P. SEN & BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.)

Constitution of India-Article 19(l)(a}-Journalist if has a right to n1eans of

information-If could claim right to interview a prisoner sente11ctd to death.

Jail Manual-Rule 549(4) Journalist-If could claim to befriend of society

and can claim right of interview with condemned prisoner.

The constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by

article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of Press, is not

an absolute right; nor indeed docs

it confer any right on the Press to have an

unrestricted access to means of information. The

Press is entitled to exercise its

freedom

of speech and expression

by publishing a matter which does not invade

the rights

of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity

of India

rhe security of the

State, public order, decency and morality. [1185 FG]

The right claimed by the petitioner in the present case, a newspaper repor·

ter, to interview two convicts under sentence of death is not a right to express

any particular view, or opinion but the right to means

of information through

the medium

of an interview with them. No such right can be

claimeci by the Press

unless the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. [l J 85 H]

The existence of a

free

Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation

on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such

as there is under section

161 (2) of the Crimmal Procedure Code. (1186 A]

Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual provides that a prisoner under a sentence of

death shall

be allowed interviews and other communications with relatives,

friends and legal advisers, journalists

and newspapermen, though not expressly

referred to in this rule cannot

be denied the opportunity of interview without

~good

reasons. There is no reason why newspapermen who could be termed as friends

of the society be denied the right of interview under rule 549(4). [1186 D·F]

There can be no doubt that a person, who desires to interview a prisoner

may have to subject himself or herself to the search in accordance with the rules

and regulations governing the interviews.

[1187

A·B]

Whether representatives of the Press should be allowed to be present at the

time of the execution of the death sentence

is a matter for the Superintendent to

consider on merits and in accordance with the jail regulations.

It is not a matter

for the Court to decide.

(1187 G]

...

' ,

-

....

-

PRABHA DUTT v. UNION (Chandrachud, c. J.) 1185

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 8193 of 1981.

(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

R. K. Garg and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.

Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No. I.

N. C. Talukdar, K.S. Gurumoorty and R. N. Poddar for Res­

pondents Nos.

2 to 4.

P. N. lekhi and K. C. Dua for the Applicants.

P. K. Bahardwaj in person for Times of India .

B. M. Srivastava for U.N.l

V. S. Karnic for P.T.I.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

A

B

c

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. This is a petition under article 32 of the D

Constitution by the Chief Reporter of the Hindustan Times, Smt.

Prabha Dutt, asking f"r a writ of mandamus or any other appro-

priate writ

or direction directing the respondents, particularly the

Delhi Administration and the Superintendent

of Jail, Tihar, to allow

her to interview two convicts

Billa and Ranga who are under a

sentence

of death. We may mention that the aforesaid two prisoners E

have been sentenced to death for an offence under section

302

Indian Penal Code and the petitions filed by them to the President

of India for commutation of the sentence are reported to have been

rejected

by the President recently.

Before considering the merits

of the application, we would

like

to observe that the constitutional right to freedom of speech

and expression conferred

by article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution,

which includes the freedom

of the

Press, is not an absolute right,

nor indeed does it confer any right on the Press to have an unres­

tricted access to means

of information. The

Press is entitled to

exercise its freedom

of speech and expression by publishing a matter

which does not invade the rights

of other citizens and which does

not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the

State, public order, decency and morality. But in the

in.slant case,

the right claimed

by the petitioner is not the right to express any

particular view or opinion but the right to means

of information

through the medium

of an interview of the two prisoners who are

sentenced to death. No such right can be claimed

by the

Press

unless in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 1 s.c.R.

willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free Press does not

imply

or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply

information to the Press, such for example, as there

is under section

161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. No data has been made

available to us on the basis

of which it would be possible for us to

say that the two prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed.

We have, however, no data either that they are not willing to be

interviewed and, indeed, if it

were to appear that the prisoners

themselves do not desire to be interviewed, it would have been

impossible for us to pass an order directing that the petitioner

should be allowed to interview them. While

we are on this aspect

of the matter, we cannot overlook that the petitioner has been asking

for permission to interview the prisoners right since the President

of India rejected the petitions filed by the prisoners for

commuta­

tion of their sentence to imprisonment for life. We are proceeding

on the basis that the prisoners are willing to

be interviewed.

Rule 549(4)

of the Manual for the Superintendence and

Management

of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides that

every prisoner under a sentence

of death shall be allowed such

interviews and other communications with his relatives, friends and

legal advisers as the Superintendent thinks reasonable. Journalists

or newspapermen are not expressly referred to in clause

(4) but that

does not mean that they can always and without good reasons be

denied the opportunity to interview a condemned prisoner.

If in

any given case, there are weighty reasons for doing so, which

we

expect will always be recorded in writing, the interview may

appro­

priately be refused. But no such consideration has been pressed

upon us and therefore

we do not see any reason why newspapermen

who can broadly, and

we suppose without great fear of

contradic­

tion, be termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an

interview under clause

(4) of rule 549.

Rule 559A also provides that all reasonable indulgence should

be allowed to a condemned prisoner in the matter of interviews with

relatives, friends, legal advisers and approved religious ministers.

G Surprisingly, but we do not propose to

dwell on that issue, this rule

provides that no newspapers should be allowed. But it does not

provide that no newspapermen will be allowed.

Mr. Talukdar who appears

on behalf of the Delhi

Adminis­

H tration contends that if we are disposed to allow the petitioner to

interview the prisoners, the interviews can be permitted only subject

to the rules and regulations

contqined in the Jail Manual. There

-

-

;

'

PRABllA btJTT v. UNION (Chandrachud, C. i.) il87

can be no doubt about this position because, for example, rule 552A

provides for a search

of the person who wants to interview a

pri­

soner. If it is thought necessary that such a search should be taken,

a person who desires to interview a prisoner may have to subject

himself or herself to the search

in accordance with the rules and

regulations governing the interviews. There is a provision in the

rules that

if a person who desires to interview a prisoner is a female,

she can be searched only by a matron

or a female warden.

Taking an overall view

of the matter, we do not see any

reason why the petitioner should not be allowed to interview the

two convicts Billa

and Ranga.

During the course

of the hearing of this petition,

represen­

tatives of the Times of India, India Today, PT! and UNI also pre­

sented their applications asking for a similar permission. What we

have said must hold good in their cases also and they, in our opinion,

should be given the same facility

of interviewing the prisoners as we

are disposed to give to the petitioner in the main writ petition.

A

B

:c

D

We therefore direct that the Superintendent of the Tihar Jail

shall allow the aforesaid persons, namely the representatives

of the

Hindustan Times, the Times

of India, India Today, the

Press Trust

of India and the United News of India to interview the aforesaid E

two prisoners, namely, Billa and Ranga, today. The interviews may

be allowed at 4 O'Clock in the evening. The representatives agree

before us

that all of them will interview the prisoners jointly and

for

not more than one hour on the whole.

There will be no order as to costs.

Mr. Lekhi who appears on behalf

of the magazine India Today

as also Mr. Jain who appears on behalf

of the Hindustan Times has

requested us to direct the Superintendent

of Jail to allow the

afore­

said representatives to be present at the time of the execution of the

death sentence.

That is not a matter for us to decide. If such an

application

is made to the Superintendent of Jail, he will be free to

consider

the same on merits and in accordance with

the jail

regulations.

P.B.R.

F

G

H