The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a Calcutta High Court order. The order had issued guidelines to probe agencies, instructing them not to disclose details related to any individual, including Rujira Banerjee, before filing a chargesheet.
The high court’s directive stemmed from a petition filed by Rujira Banerjee, the wife of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee. She alleged that central probe agencies and media outlets were engaging in character assassination by regularly publicizing information regarding ongoing probes, including those by the ED, into alleged financial and other irregularities.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra informed Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, that since the agency’s petition challenging an interim order of the high court, the Supreme Court would not entertain it.
Raju argued that the high court’s interim order essentially amounted to a final decision as it issued guidelines and granted ultimate relief to Banerjee. He requested a stay on the guidelines.
The bench informed Raju that the court would either dismiss the ED’s petition or allow it to be withdrawn, given that it challenged an interim order of the high court. Raju subsequently agreed to withdraw the petition, a request that was granted by the court.
On October 17, 2023, the high court issued a series of guidelines, instructing probe agencies and media outlets to strictly adhere to them. These guidelines included refraining from disclosing interrogation details or involving media personnel during raids or interrogations.
The court emphasized that media reports should be objective, accurate, and verifiable, and authors of articles stigmatizing individuals should be clearly identified. It also prohibited the publication of photographs linking individuals to ongoing investigations.
These guidelines were to be followed until January 15, 2024, or until further notice, by probe agencies, particularly the ED, and all media outlets.
Banerjee had approached the high court, citing her right to privacy and alleging interference with the fair trial process. The court observed that regardless of Banerjee’s citizenship status, she was entitled to protection of her fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.
