The Delhi High Court on Friday directed authorities and news agencies not to reveal the identity or record of a 17-year-old juvenile accused in the Dwarka SUV crash case. At the same time, the Court said it cannot issue a blanket “gag order” that restricts the press from reporting on the case.
What the Court Directed
Justice Saurabh Banerjee issued notice on the writ petition filed by the juvenile’s father. The Court restrained Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4—Union of India, Press Council of India and Press Trust of India (and entities under them)—from disclosing the juvenile’s record for the purpose of a character certificate or otherwise, in relation to the FIR, until the next hearing.
The Father’s Plea
The father approached the High Court seeking directions to prevent disclosure of his son’s identity under the Juvenile Justice Act. He also complained that media coverage had turned into a “media trial.”
His counsel told the Court that several channels and publications allegedly showed the minor’s face and published his name and other identifying details. The petitioner also claimed the family faced threats because of the coverage. On this basis, he sought restraint on publication of the juvenile’s identity.
Court’s View on Press Freedom and “Gag Order”
Justice Banerjee noted at the outset that the relief, as framed, effectively sought a “gag order.” The Court declined to grant any blanket restriction. It said press freedom and journalism cannot be curtailed in that manner.
However, the Court also acknowledged that the grievance about disclosure of a child’s identity appeared genuine, given the statutory bar under the Juvenile Justice framework. The Court made it clear that it would ensure compliance with the protection granted to juveniles, but it would not stop reporting altogether through a broad gag order—especially in a writ petition.
Maintainability and Narrowing of Relief
The Court also observed that the writ petition would not lie against private individuals, since the law provides other appropriate remedies.
After this observation, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the main grievance was limited to ensuring compliance with the Juvenile Justice provisions on non-disclosure. He also stated that the petitioner was not pressing reliefs against private entities.
Delhi Police Stand
Counsel for Delhi Police submitted that the petition did not raise allegations against the police. He added that the police would file a status report if the Court calls for it.
Case Title: Narender Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
