1. Directions to R1-6 to take down from their online platforms references to the "so-called WhatsApp conversations"
2. They be restrained from disseminating any particulars of the investigation not part of public record
3. That they be directed to strictly comply with programme code in reporting
4. R1-2 be restrained from divulging, sharing with media any material which is part of casefile either by press briefing or otherwise until filing of the charge sheet
Sibal recounts that #DishaRavi was arrested on 14th, no information is given to family on whether production is going to happen, however, the media is there in large numbers
Sibal recounts that on the same day the Delhi Police put out a tweet saying that #DishaRavi did more that editing two lines, that she collaborated with Khalistani organisation, that she shared tweet with @GretaThunberg
Sibal says so Delhi Police began to respond to media reports: Something that is not part of FIR, public record, but through Twitter handles, the @DelhiPolice is making their case.
Sibal says a press briefing was held thereafter, following which the media began discussing WhatsApp chats allegedly by #DishaRavi, attributing it to Police sources, cyber cell
Sibal: "There is a moving banner saying police sources for @news18dotcom
Sibal: The person reporting in Hindi goes into detail on what questions were asked by the police, what answers were given - all of that is sought to be discussed.
Court asks Sibal if he is trying to contend that police had in fact made leaks.
Sibal: They have in fact leaked, that is the only logical inference. The person broadcasting says I have got it from police forces. This is happening while I am being produced before the Magistrate.
He refers to a report by @IndiaToday "with inbuilt commentary and inferences. "
Sibal: The narrative given is she panicked, she tried to evade, delete - all this based on leaked materials and details.
Sibal referring to News18 report: Journalist is saying from my sources in ED, I believe ED will taking the case... all about what course the investigation might take... all from purported sources from those agencies.
Sibal: Ultimately it is disingenuous to say there isn't any leak...Stage of arrest over, stage of investigation is ongoing, it will culminate in a final report, one way or another.
Sibal: The nature of the press briefing is contrary to the OM (by Govt), it was not restricted to facts, it had details, particulars, inferences, opinions.
SV Raju: She is not even sure if it's her WhatsApp message, she says "alleged" in her petition
Raju: This message is from 3rd of Feb.. she herself could have given her mobile to someone from 3rd to 13th... (who may have leaked, he adds)
Raju: She is now defaming, vilifying the police. This is a systematic attempt to put pressure on the police. Somebody would have received it. Why would you blame the police?
NBSA counsel, Nisha Bhambani says NBSA has jurisdiction has only on broadcasting. If it's on youtube, it has jurisdication, but no jurisdiction over tweets.
Counsel for News18 seeks some time to file a reply.
Court: There is no doubt that the video is very, very sensational
Hrishikesh Baruah for @IndiaToday refers to an article: This not a news broadcast at all. This is only digital news online article.. therefore cable TV network act, programming code has no application. Nor does NBSA
The court notes that the issue raised is the WhatsApp messages being attributed to petitioner. It is right that the petition doesn't say WhatsApp message is false, Judge notes, responding to Baruah.
Sibal points out that "alleged" is mentioned at every stage of the petition
Sibal: This is not the stage of my defence. This is the stage of the sanctity of investigation and the code.
Baruah queries whether the right to dignity, privacy means that media is barred from putting WhatsApp chats which are not connected to any personal life is protected by Article 21?
Baruah: .. that would not be a position which is correct.
He cites CIC v. Subhash Agarwal.
Baruah argues that the material shown by media was in the public domain by 15th Feb,
Baruah: I did not violate his privacy
Kunal Tandon for Times Now: All information shown is already in the public domain. Haven't seen all the videos, so can't comment on videos.
Raju: If you reveal WhatsApp chats at the stage of charge sheet, there is no violation of privacy. It is in favour of ensuring investigation that it is not revealed at this stage (before chargesheet). It is not in favour of the petitioner but in favour of the investigation.
Central govt counsel: Since they have not approached the Ministry, not taken recourse to laws in place, this petition is premature
Sibal: There is a difference between the public record and the public domain. Merely saying that 'something is wrongfully disseminated in public domain so I must not be restrained' from disseminating it further is wrong.
Cable TV network act provides no remedy.. the authorities office has to file a complaint. the argument is you must send representation, then we may act - but there is no remedy, Sibal
Sibal: I have come on urgency, this is highly prejudicial...Office Memo itself speaks of respecting privacy during the investigation.
Sibal: How do we stop this? They say they haven't leaked, media says we got it from the police... they must not disclose anything from the casefile which is not part of public record.
Court records that #DishaRavi claims that various messages were leaked by police to media, large number of news bulletins etc. broadcasted that she was associated with unlawful groups. Records Sibal's submissions regarding tweets by @DelhiPolice
Court records that submissions were made on media restrain when reporting on ongoing cases, that cease and desist notices were issued to media, that petition was filed after media did not respond
Court records submissions by SV Raju that Delhi Police has not leaked any information, that press briefings were held is not disputed, that there may be various other sources for leak, that conduct of Delhi police would be in acc with law.
Court records Nisha Bhambani's submissions that NBSA has no jurisdiction over tweets, that action would be taken if any complaint was filed, that media outlets impleaded are members of NBA.
Court records ASG Chetan Sharma's submissions that @MIB_India has constituted an inter-ministerial committee to look into any complaints and no complaints have been received and that petition is premature.
ORDER: Case raises various issues of public importance. There are 3 aspects:
1. Privacy, the dignity of individual concerned, her right to fair trial. 2. Sovereignty & integrity of the country, reasonable restrictions that can be imposed 3. Free speech & right to public to know
Court says matter requires a detailed hearing, a large number of respondents did not have the opportunity to peruse various material. Time would have to be granted for reply.
Court: However, this court has had the opportunity to view the videos placed on record of @news18dotcom and certain other material... including the tweets by @DelhiPolice and other publications online...
Court: ....in the present case, affidavit of Delhi police reads...
Delhi police has taken the unequivocal position that they were not responsible for leaking investigative material or messages to media... media however ... has claimed to the contrary
Court: ... would require a detailed exam...reply has to be called...Qn is what should be the interim order #DishaRavi #MediaTrial #ToolkitCase
Court: In order to ensure that all three aspects of petitioner's privacy/ dignity, sovereignty/integrity and free speech are equally protected and balanced...right of the individual has to be balanced with the right of public...
Court: ... media plays a very important role in ensuring no sensationalisation...recent coverage by media shows there is definitely prejudicial, sensation coverage...
1. The @DelhiPolice will strictly abide by affidavit filed today, and Office Memorandum of April 1, 2010, which is in operation. Delhi police would be able to conduct press briefings in accordance with the law (1/n)
Court: 2. Media shall ensure that telecasts are from verified and authectic sources. Editorial teams to ensure that such broadcast has verified content. Channel editors to ensure proper editorial control so that investigation is not hampered (2/n)
Court: 3. Petitioner to ensure people connected to petitioner do no indulge in unnecessary/ scandalising messages. This would ensure that the parties do not go on a maligning course during the investigation. (4/n)
[Toolkit FIR] Recent media coverage shows there is sensational journalism: Delhi HC while hearing #DishaRavi's plea against media leaks - Read a LIVE account of the hearing today here:
[Virtual Canteen - At 5:00 PM]: The theme of today's discussion would be "Our right to dissent ". The discussion has been organized by the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum.
Justice Deepak Gupta (Retired) SC Judge, Sr. Adv. Rebecca John and Chitranshul Sinha, are the key note speakers, along with Adv
Ritu Bhalla and Manali Singhal. Adv. Arundati Katju and Adv. Swaty Singh, will be moderating the discussion.
Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud to hear a plea by Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement accusing the government of reneging on its promise to implement OROP #SupremeCourt #OneRankOnePension
The petitioner said OROP, despite assurances by the Minister on the floor of the House and Executive decisions which had become final, had become ‘One Rank Different Pension’ #SupremeCourt #OROP
The bone of contention in the petition is the government’s move on November 7, 2015 that equalisation of pension would happen periodically every five years. The petition said the equalisation of pension should be automatic, that is whenever there is disparity.
#SupremeCourt to hear plea by 3 sitting members of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal seeking to expunge allegedly "personal" and "unsavory" comments made against them in a judgment by a five-member Bench led by acting chairperson, Justice Bansi Lal Bhat #NCLAT
Petitioners, Justice (Retd) Jarat Kumar Jain, Bavinder Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh were all part of a 3-member Bench of NCLAT which had referred a matter to the 5-member Bench. #SupremeCourt