Madras High Court for media restraint; says victim safety key, not TRPs

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed the SIT probing the Pocso case involving Gem Granites R Veeramani to issue weekly press releases on the investigation, while restraining media outlets from publishing videos related to the case.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally urged media outlets to exercise sensitivity when reporting on the Pocso case, observing that the premature publication of videos and details of the investigation could have a “chilling effect” on other victims and discourage them from coming forward.

The court made the observations as Tulir Charitable Trust, represented by Managing Trustee Vidya Reddy, approached the Madras High Court seeking directions to the Commissioner of Police to prevent the further circulation of a video allegedly containing Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) and protect the identity and privacy of the victims.

The NGO said the circulation of the material outside the investigation process raised concerns over the custody and confidentiality of sensitive evidence and posed a continuing threat to the victims’ privacy, dignity and safety.

The court also said the issue could be debated, but asked whether it could be done without circulating the videos, noting that “there is something more important in life than TRP ratings.” It observed that while the media had a fundamental right to report the incident, it did not have the right to conduct a “media trial.”

Whether the accused was guilty or not had to be decided by the court and not by the media, the court said, stressing the need to keep the children safe. The court noted that the investigation was at a crucial stage and police were examining whether there were more victims.

It said that conducting debates with investigation details and circulating photographs could discourage victims from giving statements.

The court said the media’s right to report carried a corresponding duty towards both the victim children and the accused. Though the peti- tioner sought a John Doe order barring such violations, the court declined to grant it to balance the media’s rights.

However, it restrained media outlets from publishing the videos.