Jahanvi Agarwal
On Monday i.e., 10th July 2023, the Kerala High Court severely reprimanded the State police for taking a journalist’s mobile phone without following the due procedure as contemplated in law.
According to Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, if a journalist’s mobile phone is necessary to be seized as part of a criminal investigation, specific procedures must be followed.
The petitioner, G. Visakhan, a senior journalist at “Mangalam Daily,” asserted that police searched his house and questioned him about Shajan Skaria, editor and publisher of the YouTube channel Marunadan Malayali. After that, his phone was also taken into custody.
The petitioner contended that the mobile phone is his sole source of livelihood as a journalist.
Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that:
“The Journalists are part of fourth state. A 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.”
According to the petitioner, if the search by the responding police authorities fell under the purview of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and also falls under the rider of Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the police officer’s freedom would therefore be subject to Section 41A. The petitioner claimed that the respondents in this matter did not follow the aforementioned provision.
The plea stated that:
“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 further claimed that he is not the accused in the crime involving Skaria and that, as of now, no proof linking him to the alleged crime has been uncovered by the investigating authorities. The petitioner continued by asserting that it is customary for journalists to exchange news items, but he said that, most recently, he had not gotten payment from Skaria for doing so and that he had obtained news from other sources.
The petitioner approached the Court on the above-stated grounds, requesting a direction not to harass him or search his home, as well as a directive to the State authorities to take appropriate action against the police officers for the illegal search that was carried out.
Since the petitioner’s mobile phone was confiscated, the court has ordered the Pathanamthitta Station House Officer to submit a statement in the issue outlining the facts.
NDOH for the said matter is 21.07.2023
Case Name: G. Vishakan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Diary Number: 22328/2023
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan