The Supreme Court of India has directed all States and Union Territories to formulate a comprehensive policy regulating police media briefings. The Court asked authorities to take into account the suggestions submitted by the court-appointed amicus curiae.
The Bench emphasised that unregulated disclosures by police officials can seriously prejudice the right to a fair trial. Such disclosures may also erode the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Court Flags Risks of Media Trials and Premature Disclosure
Importantly, the Supreme Court noted that sensational police briefings, press notes, and selective leaks—especially during investigations—often lead to “media trials.” These practices can cause irreversible reputational damage to accused persons and witnesses.
Moreover, the Court cautioned that premature disclosures undermine due process and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Investigative agencies, the Bench clarified, must not pronounce guilt through media interactions. This restraint applies particularly before the filing of charge sheets or the commencement of trial.
Amicus Curiae’s Key Suggestions
While directing States to frame policies, the Court highlighted several recommendations made by the amicus curiae, including:
- Limiting police briefings to basic and verified factual information
- Prohibiting disclosure of confessional statements, forensic details, or unverified allegations
- Avoiding premature naming, photographing, or profiling of accused persons
- Appointing authorised spokespersons for police communications
- Ensuring strict compliance with constitutional rights, privacy norms, and criminal procedure
Need for Uniform National Standards
Notably, the Supreme Court observed that States currently lack uniform guidelines on police-media interactions. Therefore, it stressed the need for structured and written policies that balance transparency with the administration of criminal justice.
Although the public has a right to information, the Court clarified that this right cannot override an accused person’s right to dignity, reputation, and a fair investigation.
Judicial Emphasis on Presumption of Innocence
Reiterating settled law, the Bench reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal justice. Any police communication portraying an accused as guilty before adjudication, the Court said, violates constitutional morality and fundamental rights.
Additionally, the Court reminded authorities that law enforcement accountability does not extend to shaping public opinion or appeasing media narratives.
Implications of the Ruling
As a result of this direction, the ruling is expected to:
- Curb trial by media
- Encourage responsible policing and institutional discipline
- Protect fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- Reduce reputational harm caused by premature disclosures
States are now under a clear obligation to institutionalise ethical frameworks governing police-media engagement.
Conclusion
By requiring States to frame policies based on amicus curiae suggestions, the Supreme Court has taken a decisive step toward aligning police communication with constitutional guarantees. Ultimately, the ruling reinforces that criminal investigations must unfold in courtrooms—not through press briefings or television debates.
