New Delhi: A Delhi court on Tuesday said there is no legal immunity for journalists from disclosing their sources to the probe agency.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Anjani Mahajan said, “There is no statutory immunity for journalists in India from disclosing their source of information to investigative agencies, especially where such disclosure is necessary for the purpose of aiding and abetting the investigation of a criminal matter.”
The judge emphasized that “the investigating agency may always bring to the notice of the concerned journalists that the requirement of disclosure of the source is necessary and important to the proceedings of the investigation”.
The court also said that the agency can compulsorily ask people to join the investigation, if it feels that such people may have information relevant to the matter under investigation. It insisted that “public persons are under a legal duty to join the investigation”.
The court made the observation while rejecting the closure report filed by the CBI in the ‘Fake CBI Report Case’ relating to the publication of fake CBI notes in cases relating to former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and allegations of disproportionate assets against him. Of. members of his family.
In March 2007, the fake CBI report was circulated after the Supreme Court directed a preliminary inquiry into the assets acquired by Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members.
The CBI conducted the investigation between March 2007 and October 2007, and filed two status reports in sealed covers before the Supreme Court. The matter came up for final hearing on 9 February 2009.
However, the day before this final hearing, The Times of India published a news article with the title “CBI May Accept Mulayam Was Framed – DIG’s Internal Note Says Agency Didn’t Verify in PIL”. The same news was also broadcast star news And CNN-IBN,
The review note circulated and published by the news organizations was allegedly fabricated. Subsequently, on 16 March 2009, an FIR was registered against unknown persons for preparing a false and fabricated report to malign the reputation of the CBI. As per the forensic opinion – as mentioned in the court order – the signature of Tilottama Verma, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, was “exploited from the original note-sheet and compressed and reproduced on the said 17-page review note”. Had gone”.
‘Fully booked under IPC and CrPC’
However, the CBI has now filed a final closure and “untrace” report in the case, stating that the documents used by the news channels were forged, but it could not be ascertained who forged the documents as the news channels did not disclose their source. It insisted that there was not enough material or evidence to prove criminal conspiracy.
In its order, the court observed that the closure report “shows that the CBI has chosen not to take the investigation to its logical conclusion”. It asserted that the probe agency should not have stopped its entire investigation merely because the journalists concerned refused to disclose their sources.
The court asserted that the CBI is within its power to issue notices under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and directed journalists and news agencies to provide necessary information. Section 91 allows the court or any police officer to demand the production of any documents or other things which it thinks may be necessary for investigation. It then said that the journalists concerned needed to be further questioned about their sources from whom they obtained the forged documents.
“The investigating agency is fully equipped to require public persons to compulsorily join an investigation under the IPC and CrPC, where the investigating agency is of the opinion that such public person is likely to interfere with the investigation and any facts relating to the public matter or The circumstances are confidential. Individuals have a legal duty to join the investigation,” it explained.
“Further, on the basis of such information, additional leads regarding the identity of the offenders who were involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy were prepared and genuine by fraudulently and knowingly providing the forged document to the media/publishing/disseminating the same; can be used as found and examined,” the court ordered.
The court further noted that when journalists Deepak Chaurasia, Bhupinder Choubey and Manoj Mitta were examined, only Choubey’s statement is on record and only he has been listed as a witness in the first final report of the CBI. The court, however, felt that it needed to be reconsidered by the CBI.
‘completely silent’
The order also noted that the two allegedly forged status reports contained several paragraphs lifted from the undated status reports of the CBI, which were placed in a sealed cover for the Supreme Court. However, it said that the CBI’s final report was “completely silent on the aspect of the investigation, if any was conducted, how the official document i.e. the undated status report of the CBI which was kept in a sealed cover, was leaked a day before”. It was to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the office of the CBI, finally it reached the media.
It is also noted that the final report has not disclosed any investigation as to “how the forger could have gained access to the original note-sheet of Smt. As per the opinion of CFSL, the signature of Tilottama Verma on the alleged forged document was removed retrieved, compressed and reproduced”.
The court, therefore, quashed the “untrace” report and directed the CBI to conduct further investigation in the matter.
“Thus, there is also a need for further investigation by the CBI on the modus operandi adopted by the convicts to access/obtain the official documents, including probing the involvement of any insider in the alleged acts and the alleged forged 17 pages This includes preparing a review. Note, “Ordered this.
The CBI has been given time till March 24 to file a supplementary report in the matter.