The Allahabad High Court has refused to put a ban on media from reporting the proceedings in the illegal conversion case involving an Islamic Scholar, accused of converting around 1000 persons.
The Lucknow Division Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Srivastava passed this order on Wednesday, while hearing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mohd Umar Gautam, who is claiming himself to be an Islamic Scholar and a religious preacher.
His Counsel said that vide notice dated June 16, 2021, the Umar was instructed to join interrogation at Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad in relation to an FIR registered against him. On June 19, he was asked to join the interrogation at Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad. The petitioner alleged that during interrogation, his signature was taken on a blank paper.
Thereafter, without informing the family members of Umar, respondent no 2 (Uttar Pradesh Anti Terrorist Squad) took him away to Lucknow and on June 20, an FIR was lodged by the UP Anti Terrorist Squad against him under relevant Sections of IPC and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Act, 2021, at Police Station ATS Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, alleging that Umar conducted mass scale conversion of around 1000 persons, especially deaf and mute students, women, children and those from weaker and vulnerable sections.
He was arrested last month by the UP ATS on charges of mass conversion of people into Islam through inducement such as marriage, job and money, and mental pressure.
Umar’s Counsel argued that on placing reliance upon the said press note dated June 20, several news outlets, TV media outlets and social media handles have published and broadcast the highly sensitive/confidential information in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation in the FIR.
The sole aim of such disclosures appear to vilify and severely prejudice the fair trial rights of the petitioner. News programmes broadcasting/aired with offending material against the petitioner are in violation of the programming code, as well as Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, noted the Counsel.
He further submitted that the Investigating Agency has also disclosed certain confessions made by the petitioner during interrogation by means of press release dated June 20. The said press note was issued by the UP ATS in an attempt to prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and thus, violates Article 21 of the Constitution, added the Counsel.
The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) on the other hand, opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and argued that there is no dispute with regard to principles as set out by the Supreme Court, as well as this Court, with regard to the role of media in pending investigation.
He submitted that while issuing press note on June 20, the Investigating Agency had no intention of causing any prejudice to the petitioner or with a view to attack his reputation, but for the sole purpose of making aware the public at large that some anti-social elements and terrorist groups, in connivance with ISI and some foreigner organisations, were trying to convert the weaker sections of the society to Muslim, in order to disturb the peace and harmony of the country.
He further submitted that such a campaign would have the effect of adversely affecting the reputation of the Police and public faith in the authorities. He contended that in such circumstances, it was necessary for the UP Police to issue the public note to inform the public that the petitioner was not being persecuted, but prosecuted on the basis of investigation and evidence that he was involved in commission of offences.
The AGA said that the press note was not put out as any offensive measure against the petitioner, but to defend the reputation and maintain public trust in UP Police. It was not the intention of the Police to run a media trial, which is evident from the fact that the UP Police had issued only one note mentioning the petitioner’s name.
He further said that the language of the press note was also measured and only referred to the contents of the FIR, which was lodged at Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad and not a single word in respect of ongoing investigation in the FIR, which was lodged against the petitioner and one Jahagir by UP ATS at Police Station ATS Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
The question before the Court is now limited to examining whether such disclosure violates the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution, or offends any law.
“We are unable to accept that the said Police communication violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner or provisions of any law. The question whether the respondent is eventually able to establish their allegations beyond any reasonable doubt is a matter for the Trial Court to consider after a due trial.
“As noticed above, the contention that the respondent felt necessary to defend its position that they were not persecuting the petitioner, but had proceeded against him on the basis of the investigation carried out, is also not a matter on which this Court requires to express any opinion. The reasons that prompted the respondent to issue the press note are not subject to judicial review, provided they are bona fide and do not violate the petitioner’s right,” the Court said.
“In view of the above, we are of the view that since nothing has been brought on record, which indicates that respondents have leaked any allegation pertaining to the petitioner to the media pending investigation or violated the norms as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated April 1, 2010 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in the petition,” the Court observed.
“For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed,” the Court ordered.