Madras High Court bars media from discussing facts of Veeramani POCSO case

The Madras High Court on Friday restrained mainstream television channels, YouTube channels and other digital platforms from holding discussions that touch upon the factual matrix of a child sexual abuse case registered against R. Veeramani of Gem Granites and others.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, passing interim orders on a writ petition, made clear that the media remains free to debate issues arising out of child abuse so long as the conversation does not stray into the facts of the crime under investigation by the Greater Chennai City Police.

To balance the public interest in the progress of the probe, the court directed an all-women Special Investigation Team constituted by Director General of Police Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal to investigate the case and issue weekly press releases.

The judge also granted an interim injunction barring media outlets and other entities from publishing, broadcasting, transmitting, circulating, reproducing or otherwise disseminating any video or screen grab connected to the crime under investigation.

The orders were passed on a petition filed by Tulir Charitable Trust, which works for the prevention and healing of child sexual abuse, against the telecast of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material by prominent television channels.

During the hearing, the judge observed that there are things more important in life than TRP ratings, underscoring the sensitivity of the investigation.

State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan informed the court that the police had decided to register a separate First Information Report regarding the leak of child sexual abuse videos linked to the case to the media, and that efforts were on to trace those responsible. He asserted that the leak had not originated from the police department, and said that although a particular individual had been widely named on social media, the matter was still under investigation and action would follow if the claims were found true.

Justice Lakshminarayanan noted that there could be more victims of the sexual offence who might hesitate to come forward and confide in the police if videos of other victims continued to surface on television and YouTube while the investigation was ongoing. He added that the rights of the accused could not be violated either by telecasting sexually explicit material concerning him, remarking that however much one may abhor his acts, assuming he did them, he too has certain rights.

In his interim order, the judge said the court cherishes the right to freedom of speech and expression and, in particular, the freedom of the press to disseminate information, but was also reminded of the gruesome Mumbai terror attacks, where constant media coverage exposed the strategies of law-enforcing agencies to the handlers of the terrorists. He observed that a right carries a corresponding duty, owed not only to the children but also to the accused, and that while the press has the right to report, whether that right extends to a media trial would have to be examined by the court.

The matter will be taken up for detailed examination after all respondents file their counter affidavits, with the court adjourning further hearing to September 30. The Centre and the State police told the court that steps had already been taken to take down the objectionable videos from online platforms.