Patna High Court: Media Must Avoid Labels That Presume Guilt Before Trial

It is entirely in the fitness of things and so also perfectly in order that the Patna High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgement titled Rishu Shree vs State of Bihar in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32409 of 2026 (Arising Out of PS. Case No. 5 Year 2025 Thana- Vigilance District- Patna) that was pronounced just recently on 24.06.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that while the media is free to report factual developments concerning criminal cases, it should refrain from describing an accused as “mastermind”, "scamster", or “kingpin” or using other labels which imply that the accused is guilty even before a trial.

We thus see that the Court has made it indubitably clear that an accused’s right to a fair trial must be protected while directing the media to refrain from using labels that imply that an accused in an alleged tender scam case was guilty even before a trial.

It must be noted that the single judge bench comprising the Honourable Mr Justice Ansul sent a very loud and clear message that news outlets cannot conduct a media trial that undermines an individual’s right to a fair trial.

High Court Protects Reputation Before Conviction

It was underscored by the Patna High Court most emphatically that a person’s reputation cannot be prejudiced before a court determines whether the accused is guilty or not.

We need to note that the Court passed the pragmatic judgement while hearing a petition that had been filed by Rishu Shree, who sought the quashing of a first information report (FIR) that had been registered by the Bihar Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in connection with an alleged tender scam.

This leading case is scheduled for further hearing on July 10.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

Court Observations and Directions

• Media is free to report factual developments concerning criminal cases.
• Media should not describe an accused as a "mastermind", "scamster", or "kingpin" or use similar labels implying guilt before trial.
• An accused's right to a fair trial must be protected.
• A person's reputation cannot be prejudiced before a court determines guilt.

Court Proceedings Before the Patna High Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr Justice Ansul of Patna High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that,

“The instant application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pertaining to Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025.”

Paragraph 3: Submissions by Enforcement Directorate

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para. 3 that,

“Counsel for the ED, Mr. Zohaib Hossain appeared and he stated that in the round of litigation in connection with same FIR, the petitioner has filed Cr.WJC No. 1046 of 2025 in which they added as a party but here they have not been added as a party.”

Paragraph 4: Direction to Implead ED

As things stands, the Bench then directs in para. 4 that,

“Counsel for the petitioner is directed to add Enforcement Directorate as party respondent.”

Paragraph 5: ED Seeks Time for Counter Affidavit

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that,

“Mr. Zohaib Hossain, counsel for the ED seeks time to file counter affidavit to bring the materials available on record.”

Paragraph 6: SVU Directed to Explain Delay

Quite naturally, the Bench points out in para. 6 that,

“Counsel for the SVU also seeks time to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit must explain the reasons for delay of one year in conducting the raid after registration of FIR.”

Media Trial and Fair Trial Concerns

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para. 7 that "Counsel for the petitioner Ms Nandita Roy, Sr Adv., has stated that one more thing is very relevant in this case: that an FIR was registered, and after more than a year of registration of FIR, a raid was conducted in the residential premises on 27.05.2026, and he was arrested on the same date. She states that in the raid nothing incriminating was found against him. Still, after arrest, various television channels, newspapers, online news portals and social media handles commenced extensive and lurid coverage of the case, broadcasting one-sided narratives, unverified allegations and prejudicial content that portrays the petitioner as guilty even before the commencement of trial. Several primetime news debates were conducted by prominent TV anchors wherein the petitioner was condemned, vilified and subjected to public humiliation without any opportunity to present his side. Such coverage has the direct effect of influencing public opinion against the petitioner, prejudicing the minds of potential witnesses and creating an atmosphere inimical to a fair trial.”

Key Concerns Highlighted by the Petitioner

• FIR was registered more than a year before the raid and arrest.
• No incriminating material was allegedly found during the raid.
• Television channels, newspapers, online news portals, and social media extensively covered the case.
• Coverage allegedly included one-sided narratives, unverified allegations, and prejudicial content.
• Prime-time debates portrayed the petitioner as guilty before the commencement of trial.
• The petitioner argued that such reporting could influence public opinion, potential witnesses, and the fairness of the trial.

Supreme Court Precedent on Trial by Media

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 8 that, “She further states that in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 386, it was unequivocally stated that 'A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law.'"

Important Case Law on Media Reporting

One-Sided Media Coverage in Sub-Judice Matters

While citing yet another relevant case law, the Bench states in para 9 that, “In M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 686, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not proper for the press or the electronic media to project a one-sided picture of events before the public in matters which are sub judice."

Prior Restraints on Publications

While striking the right chord, the bench, while dwelling on yet another case law, mentions in para 10 that, “In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 603, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the courts have the power to impose prior restraints on publications in exceptional cases where there exists a real and substantial risk.”

Court Examination of Annexures

Do note, the bench notes in para. 11 that, “This court has gone through the annexures in the interlocutory applications No. 01 of 2026.”

Examples of Media Reporting Noted by the Court

Simply put, the Bench states in para 12 that there is a report where the heading is Bihar’s Curious Case of an Indispensable Engineer: What an ED Probe Found. Another report says Bihar Police searches the houses of two IAS officers over a tender scam. In other news, the photograph of the petitioner is there, and it says: Tender-scam accused Rishu avoids direct answers and denies wrongdoing. One news outlet writes: “As the Bihar government’s focus is on development and infrastructure projects worth thousands of crores, Rishu Sinha created a network to pay a decent commission to government officials for securing tenders." One newspaper states that ED raids 7 places in Patna and keeps counting cash for 8 hours using 4 machines.”

News Headlines Referred to by the Bench

• Bihar’s Curious Case of an indispensable engineer: What an ED probe found.
• Bihar Police searches the houses of two IAS officers over a tender scam.
• Tender scam accused Rishu avoids direct answers and denies wrongdoing.
• Reports alleging creation of a commission network for securing government tenders.
• Reports of ED raids at seven locations in Patna and cash counting using four machines.

Social Media and Presumption of Guilt

More worryingly, the Bench observes in para 13 that, “It is to be seen that these news items are not only in the mainline press or television channels but also the social media platforms are flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even the initiation of the trial.”

Fair Trial and Constitutional Protections

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 14 that "The petitioner may be accused of a serious case; his rights to get a fair trial would not be ousted by the magnitude of the allegation, i.e., levelled against him. There is freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(A) of the Constitution, which is subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) in the interest of state security, public order, decency, morality, defamation and incitement to an offence.”

Constitutional Provisions Referred to

Bench on Pre-Judging Sub-Judice Matters

Most forthrightly and most rationally, the Bench underscores in para 15 holding unequivocally that "Maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of a defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act. This is pre-judging the issue when the matter is sub judice."

Reference to Mahua Moitra Case and Media Policy

While citing a recent and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para. 16 that, in the case of Mahua Moitra decided on 23.02.2024 in W.P. (c) 2676/2024, an Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 issued by the Government of India is an advisory on the media policy of police. It stated, "While sharing information to the public through the media, appropriate information as is professionally necessary is shared without hampering the process of investigation or issues of legal/privacy rights of the accused/victims and matters of strategic and national interest.”

Media Policy Principles Referred to

• Only professionally necessary information should be shared with the media.
• The investigation process should not be hampered.
• Legal and privacy rights of accused persons and victims should be protected.
• Matters involving strategic and national interest should be safeguarded.

ED Counsel Concern Over Media Trials

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 17 that, “Apart from that, Senior Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the ED also expressed his displeasure over the type of reporting that is going on with regard to the case and with regard to the recent trend of media trials."

Free Press and Responsible Media Reporting

Most explicitly, the Bench, while citing relevant case laws, concedes in para. 18 that "This Court is clearly aware of the judgements passed in the case of Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641, which established the idea of a free press. In LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.) reported in (1992) SCC 637, the court held that in any set-up, more so in a democratic set-up like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must, and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon.”

Court Balances Free Press with Responsible Reporting

Most commendably, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 19 that, “Having seen both sides of the coin, this court is clearly not in favour of a media gag over the issue. However, the court would certainly direct control over irresponsible reporting and imputation of guilt upon the petitioner without any initiation of trial at all.”

Directions Issued to Print, Electronic, Digital and Social Media

As a corollary and far most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 20 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement, postulating precisely that, “In that view of the matter, the court issues the following directions:

Pending consideration of the present petition, all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms shall be at liberty to report the factual developments concerning the case and proceedings before competent courts.

However, none of the above would

• (a) Describe the petitioner as guilty of the offences alleged.
• (b) Portray the petitioner as having committed the offences alleged.
• (c) Publish or broadcast material pertaining to determining criminal liability.
• (d) Use expressions imputing guilt like 'mastermind', 'scamster', 'kingpin' or equivalent descriptions conveying criminal responsibility.
• (e) Conduct media trials based upon alleged confessions, investigation material, and unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined.
• (f) However, nothing in this order shall prevent fair, accurate and objective reporting of the proceedings pending before the court or publication of the facts.”

Summary of Media Restrictions

Scope of Restraint on Digital Platforms

It would be instructive to note that the Bench, for clarity, hastens to add in para 21 clarifying that, “The above restraint shall extend to digital publications, online portals, video streaming services, podcasts, social media accounts, channels and other internet-based platforms.”

Platforms Covered by the Order

• Digital publications
• Online portals
• Video streaming services
• Podcast
• Social media accounts
• Channels
• Other internet-based platforms

Next Date of Hearing

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 22 that "Put up this case on 10.07.2026 for further hearing.”

Conclusion: Media Cannot Label an Accused Before Trial

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Patna High Court has sent a very loud and unequivocal message that the media should strictly refrain from describing an accused by labels.

To put it differently, the Court has made it indubitably clear that media can’t label an accused as a mastermind, scamster or kingpin before a trial takes place.

It is high time, and media must most strictly abide by what the Patna High Court has directed so explicitly, elegantly and eruditely in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.