Although Freedom Of Press Does Not Universally Encompass Sting Operations, Accredited Media Persons' Sting Operations Deserve Special Consideration Due to Their Role as the Fourth Estate: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court observed that though the Freedom of the Press might not universally encompass sting operations, those carried out by accredited media persons should be evaluated differently due to their essential function as the Fourth Estate in a democracy. 

In that context, the Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that, ""‘sting operation’ by law enforcement agency and recognised media people is to be viewed in a different angle. But, there cannot be any uniform rule that all ‘sting operation’ conducted by the law enforcement agency and media is to be legalised... if the ‘sting operation’ is to find out the truth and to convey the same to the citizen, without any malafide intention, the press is exempted from prosecution for such ‘sting operation’. But the press should act with bonafides and their aim should be only to promote the democracy and their intention should be to find out the truth and not to harass or humiliate any person or any section of people or the government.""

The Court was considering whether media persons could be exempt from prosecution under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act 2010.

The petitioners, two journalists from Reporter TV Channel, attempted a sting operation in the District Jail, Pathanamthitta, to record a statement from Joppan, a former staff member of the ex-Chief Minister Oomen Chandy, who was jailed in connection with the solar case scam.

The journalists were accused of violating Sections 86 (punishment in certain cases) and 87 (power to arrest for an offence under Section 86) of the 2010 Act by recording Joppan's statement with a phone during a visit in July 2013, which was against jail rules. They sought to have the final report against them quashed by the High Court.

The High Court observed that, "the petitioners admittedly entered the district jail premises with prior permission. The petitioners were trying to get the statement of a prisoner who was involved in a very sensational case during that period. Every day, news was coming about the above case at that time. Because of an over enthusiasm to get the statement of a prisoner, the petitioners used a mobile phone. This was detected by the prison officers as evident by Annexure - II and refrained them from using the mobile phone. Therefore no recording was effected because of the interference of the jail authorities."

In light of the same, the Court took the considered view that the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners, who are media persons, is not necessary. To that end, it was said that, "The act of the petitioners was only with an intention to get news and there is no intentional act to violate the law."

Cause Title: Pradeep & Anr. vs State of Kerala 

Click here to read/download the Judgment