Gag Orders Restricting Right To Express An Opinion Can’t Be Imposed As Bail Condition: Kerala HC Allows i2i News Managing Editor's Plea

The Court held that orders restricting the right of a person to express an opinion cannot be issued under the guise of imposing conditions while granting bail. The Bench explained that even though an opinion on a public platform may invite punitive or compensatory action against those responsible, however, such a probability cannot be a reason to restrict the right of a person from expressing his opinion or airing his views, that too, as a condition while granting bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “Petitioner is entitled to have an opinion relating to the death of the Bishop of the Believers Church. He is also entitled to express his views and opinions. This is a facet of his freedom of expression. Petitioner cannot therefore be restrained from expressing his views through a condition in a bail order. However, if his expression of views creates a criminal offence, he may have to face actions as contemplated under law. However, such a possibility cannot be a reason to restrain the exercise of his fundamental right to express as an individual or his journalistic freedom.”

Advocate Sooraj T. Elenjickal appeared for the petitioner, while PP Sreeja V. represented the respondents.

The petitioner was a journalist operating a news channel by the name ‘i2i News’. He was alleged to have published news relating to the death of the Bishop of Believers Church portraying it to be a murder and not an accidental death. He was charged under Sections 153, 120B and 506 of the IPC. The petitioner had already filed complaints before the State Police Chief to investigate the allegation.

He was granted anticipatory bail by the trial court, but a condition was imposed which included a restraint on publishing any news relating to the death of the said Bishop.

The High Court held, “Directions which are in the nature of blanket orders restricting the right of a person to express an opinion cannot be issued under the guise of imposing conditions while granting bail. Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a person is entitled to the right to freedom of expression.”

The Court referred to the decision in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020), wherein the Supreme Court observed that the exercise of journalistic freedom lay at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and as a media journalist the airing of views on television-shows was in the exercise of the said fundamental right.

The Court explained, “Restricting the publishing of any news relating to the death of a person is in effect prejudging the issue that such broadcasts of news would amount to an offence. A condition of that nature has all the trappings of a gag order.”

The Court referred to the decision in Muhammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022), wherein the Apex Court clarified that a blanket order preventing a person from tweeting cannot be imposed. The judgment read, “Merely because the complaints filed against the petitioner arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made.”

Consequently, the Court held, “This Court is satisfied that condition in the impugned order dated to the extent it restrains the accused from broadcasting any news or giving any interview relating to the death of Sri. K.P.Yohannan on any news channel or any newspaper is an unreasonable condition. The said condition in the impugned bail order, to the above extent, is hence deleted.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Sunil Mathew v. The Station House Officer & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:71524)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Helen P.A., Stephanie Sharon, Athul Roy and Indrajith Dileep

Respondents: PP Sreeja V.

Click here to read/download the Order