Regulating Police Interaction with Media: Supreme Court Issues Three-Month Deadline

Original Reportage: This article is based on the report “SC tells States to frame policy on police media briefing in 3 months” by Krishnadas Rajagopal, published in *The Hindu*, which can be accessed at:
Judicial Bench: The directive was issued by a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh during a hearing on January 15, with the detailed order published recently.
Origin of Petition: The case stems from a long-standing petition by the NGO People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), which previously led to the landmark 2014 judgment on mandatory guidelines for police encounter investigations.

Source

Three-Month Timeline: The Supreme Court has granted all State governments a strict window of three months to formalize and implement a policy regarding how police brief the media.
Model Framework: States are required to model their specific policies on the ‘Police Manual for Media Briefing’ submitted by the court-appointed *amicus curiae*.
Standardizing Procedures: The goal is to move away from ad-hoc briefings and establish a “principled, rights-compatible, and investigation-safe” framework across the country.

Expert Manual: Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, acting as the *amicus curiae*, prepared the comprehensive manual that serves as the foundation for the new directives.
Consultative Process: The manual was drafted after analyzing the views of the Union government and incorporating global best practices regarding law enforcement communication.
Judicial Endorsement: The Supreme Court has officially taken this document on record and ordered its Registry to upload it to the court’s website for public and administrative access.

Legitimate Information: The manual recognizes the public’s right to receive timely and accurate information regarding criminal investigations and law enforcement activities.
Rights Protection: A core objective of the framework is to safeguard the dignity and privacy of victims, witnesses, and suspects alike.
Fair Trial Rights: The court emphasized that media briefings must not jeopardize the right to a fair trial by creating prejudice or leaking sensitive evidence prematurely.

Verified Communication: In the era of instant viral news, the manual stresses that police must communicate only correct and verified information.
Countering Misinformation: Regulated briefings are seen as a tool to prevent the spread of rumors and speculative “media trials” that often occur on social media platforms.
Necessary Disclosure: The guidelines advise that only information that is strictly “necessary” for the public interest should be disclosed during the pendency of an investigation.

The 2014 Landmark: This current order is an extension of the legal journey that began with the 16 mandatory guidelines established to govern the aftermath of police encounters and extra-judicial killings.
Home Ministry’s Role: Initially, the Union Home Ministry was tasked with creating this manual, but the responsibility eventually transitioned to the *amicus curiae* to ensure a balanced perspective.
Continuing Compliance: The court views regulated media briefings as a necessary component of the transparency required in the wake of suspicious police actions.

Lack of Interest: The Bench noted with concern that State governments had shown “inadequate interest” in participating in the drafting process despite multiple opportunities.
Repeated Delays: The court highlighted that several orders granting extra time to the States had passed without significant contributions from the local administrations.
Ending Pendency: Justice Sundresh remarked that the court did not wish to keep the matter pending any longer, prompting the decisive three-month ultimatum.

Investigation-Safe Framework: The policy aims to ensure that premature media disclosures do not alert absconding accused or destroy potential leads.
Evidence Protection: By regulating what officers say to cameras, the court intends to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of forensic or testimonial evidence that could be challenged in court.
Professional Standards: The manual encourages a professional spokesperson model rather than allowing every investigating officer to give personal soundbites.

Registry’s Task: The Supreme Court Registry has been directed to upload Mr. Sankaranarayanan’s work on the official website within two weeks of the order.
Dissemination of Order: Copies of the order are to be sent to all State Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police (DGPs) to ensure immediate commencement of the policy-making process.
Public Scrutiny: Making the manual public ensures that citizens and journalists can hold the police accountable to the new standards once they are adopted.

National Consistency: If implemented correctly, this will lead to a uniform standard of police communication from Jammu & Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
Legal Accountability: Failure by States to evolve a policy within the three-month period could lead to contempt proceedings or further judicial intervention.
Evolving Jurisprudence: This move marks a significant step in Indian jurisprudence toward balancing the “freedom of the press” with the “rights of the accused” and the “integrity of the state’s investigative machinery.”

Swastika Shiksha