No Law Stops Media From Disclosing Accused’s Name: Sikkim High Court

In Rabden Sherpa v State of Sikkim, the Sikkim High Court has made it clear that there is no legal bar on the media naming an accused while reporting on an FIR. The Court said fair crime reporting cannot automatically be called a media trial.

Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that reporting the registration of an FIR is part of the media’s role in a democratic society. The Court underlined that such reporting is permissible so long as it is fair, accurate, and does not reveal the identity of the victim.

The Court said, “The press and the media is the fourth pillar of democracy which should always be alert as a watch dog of our society. Reporting a crime is part of their duty. Fair and accurate reporting of the factum of lodging of the FIR against the accused person without disclosing the name and identity of the victim and judging the act alleged cannot be termed as “media trial” and thereafter seek sanctions against it.”

The matter came before the High Court after a plea was filed against a report published by Sikkim Chronicle. The report had mentioned that an FIR had been registered against the accused. The petitioner asked for the report to be removed and also sought a direction stopping further reports on the case.

Rejecting this request, the High Court noted that the Supreme Court has already directed that FIRs should be uploaded on police websites. It said there is no direction from the Supreme Court stating that the accused’s name or the contents of the FIR must be withheld from the public.

The Court remarked, “If what the learned Counsel argues before this Court is to be upheld then the direction to upload the FIR in public websites given by the Supreme Court would be otiose. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel’s submissions.”

The High Court also considered references made to the proposed Police Manual for Media Briefing placed before the Supreme Court by an amicus curiae. Even there, it found no restriction on naming an accused in such reports.

At the same time, the Court recognised that there may be cases where reporting could affect a fair trial. In such situations, an accused or any other aggrieved person may seek postponement of publication or reporting of certain parts of proceedings, depending on the facts.

However, Justice Pradhan found no such risk in the present matter. The Court noted that the report carried both the contents of the FIR and the version presented by the accused’s son, showing balance in reporting.

The Court finally held that no reasonable restriction on the press was called for in this case. It also observed that where media reporting is based on public records, the claim to privacy does not continue in the same way. The plea was therefore dismissed.

Advocate Abhinav Kant Jha appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate SK Chettri represented the State.