Videography by media of convict is permissible or not
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
R/Sir
My relative and five other were convicted in a crl case,after pronouncement when police was shifting them from court to jail,in court permises (not in court room) some electronic media reporters started videography, when i objected ,media persons misbehaved with me,even they filed a written complaint before President of Bar Association against our lawyer as he also raised objections for videography, i want to know in given situation videography by media is permissible or not.kindly advice me as i want to file case against media,is it violation of right to privacy.Thanx
Regards
Rajbir Rohtak
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 05 October 2011
The accused has the right to privacy and they can not be forced to reveal the identity to anybody by way of picture/ videography etc.
However, as the judgement is a public document, I don't know whether the same principle can be extended to convicts as well.
Other experts may throw more light on it.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 05 October 2011
I endorse the views of Shri Shonee Kapoor.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 05 October 2011
Videography by media is permissible or not.kindly advice me as i want to file case against media.
AnS- It is not barred. Use of Photography within Court room is prohibited but in Court compound it is permitted. Even multi-multi-multi millionaire A.Raza, Suresh Kalmadi were videographed during their transit in custody.
Guest
(Expert) 05 October 2011
I endorse the views of Shri Arun Kumar Bhagat.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2011
There is no reason for some one to differ with views expressed by Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 05 October 2011
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bhagat, while videography of the convict within the court room is not allowed, there is no bar for videograph outside the court premises. In fact, it is for the convicts to cover their faces in case if they do not want to get videographed. The accuseds and their lawyers can object - similarly the videographer can also film amidst such objections.
In fact many of the photos of convicts are displayed at Police Stations, Railway Stations etc., to make the people beware of such persons.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 October 2011
See these cases:
Express Newspapers Vs. U.O.I., (1997) 1 SCC 133. See also re:Harijai Singh and re:Vijayakumar, AIR 1997.
Earlier, journalism was not under pressure to push up TRP ratings or sales. So the
journalists did their work with serious intent and conviction, with courage and integrity. They did not pronounce people guilty without making a serious attempt to study the charges, investigate them, and come to their own independent conclusions, without fear or favor. They did not blindly print what law enforcers claimed, what the bureaucracy said or what politicians planted on to them. That is why people trusted them. But now we are seeing a different self-acquired role of media in form of ‘media trial’. Everyone manipulates the media to serve their own interests or hurt their rivals. The problem does not lie in media’s exposing
the lacuna of a bad investigation by cops, or mal-performance of the duties ordained to the civil servants but the eye-brows start to raise when the media ultra vires its legitimate jurisdiction and does what it must not do. Be it highlighting the sub-judice issues into public keeping at stake the sanctity of judicial procedures and ‘right to life with dignity’ of accused
and suspects. The media trial has now moved on to media verdict and media punishment which is no doubt an illegitimate use of freedom and transgressing the prudent demarcation
of legal boundaries. It is necessary to check prejudicial publicity of the subject matter pending before a court. It should be legally permissible to pass restraint order on the media.
