The Kerala High Court recently criticized the State police for seizing a journalist’s mobile phone without following the proper legal procedures.
A single bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan emphasized that if it is necessary to seize a journalist’s mobile phone in connection with a criminal case, specific procedures must be followed.
The petitioner, G. Visakhan, a senior journalist at ‘Mangalam Daily,’ stated that police officers conducted a search at his residence and inquired about the editor and publisher of the YouTube Channel Marunadan Malayali, Shajan Skaria. Subsequently, Visakhan’s mobile phone was also confiscated. The petitioner emphasized that his mobile phone is his primary source of livelihood as a journalist.
“The Journalists are part of fourth state. The Journalist may be getting several information in their mobile phones. But which news is to be telecasted and published is to be decided by Journalist taking into consideration the information received. Telecasting every information even if it is hearsay is not journalism. Simply because, the Journalist has got some information about the crime, the mobile phone cannot be seized, without following the procedure contemplated in Cr.P.C. There is allegation in this case to the effect that the petitioner and even his family members are harassed. That can’t be allowed,” Justice Kunhikrishnan observed.
The petitioner argues that if the search carried out by the respondent police authorities falls under the scope of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it is also subject to the provisions of Section 41A of the CrPC, which entails providing notice of appearance before the police officer. The petitioner contends that in the current case, the respondents did not adhere to this provision.
“So in the backdrops of the above factual matrix and the legal proposition, it is evident that the so-called search conducted by the respondents 5 to 7 (Superintendent of Police, SHO. Elamakkara and SHO, Pathanamthitta) at the instance of respondents 3 and 4 (Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police, respectively) is per se illegal and for which the respondents herein are severally and collectively responsible and answerable in the eyes of law,” the petitioner submitted.
Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that he is not an accused in the crime related to Skaria and that no incriminating evidence has been discovered by the investigating agency to establish any connection between him and the said crime. He also claimed that it is common practice among journalists to share news items. However, he adds that he has not received any remuneration from Skaria for sharing news recently and that he has been receiving news from other sources as well.
Based on these grounds, the petitioner filed an application with the Court requesting a directive to prevent any harassment or searches in his house, and also urging the State authorities to take necessary action against the police officers involved in the unlawful search.
In response, the bench directed the Station House Officer of Pathanamthitta to submit a statement regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the petitioner’s mobile phone.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 21st July, 2023.
