Seizing journalists’ mobile phones is an assault on the press: Madras HC raps SIT probing Anna University sexual assault case

The Anna University sexual assault case and the investigations seem to have turned out to be a huge embarrassment for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) with the Madras High Court slamming the investigators right from day one, in one issue after the other. The latest being Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan slamming the all-women SIT for confiscating the mobile phones of journalists investigating the Anna University sexual assault case. The SIT was constituted by the Madras High Court and it consists of IPS officers of the Tamil Nadu cadre.

“Forcing journalists to provide access to their personal and private data, and asking them to reveal private and confidential information is nothing but assaulting the press and oppressing them with the fear of surveillance,” Justice Ilanthiraiyan said adding that press freedom and privacy are allies.

The High Court made the observation while hearing a petition filed by four journalists challenging the action of the SIT confiscating their mobile phones for downloading the FIR filed by the investigation team in the Anna University sexual assault case. In their petition filed before the Madras High Court, the journalists said that their mobile phones were seized and they were subjected to a long list of questions about their personal and professional lives. 

The SIT had given a questionnaire with 30 questions to the journalists about their personal and professional lives. The questions were framed in such a way that it demanded the journalists to disclose their sources in the Anna University sexual assault case, particularly with regard to the leakage of FIR.

Directing the SIT to return the seized mobile phones, the judge instructed the officers to restrain from inquiring about the family details and the sources to journalists. “The seizure of the mobile phones was a clear violation of Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act of 1978,” the judge said. He added section 15(2) of the act clearly states that no newspaper, news agency editor or journalist could be compelled to disclose the source of any news or information received and reported. “The source of information received by a journalist would fall under the purview of privileged communication,” the judge ruled. 

Reaffirming that the journalists are protected from such interventions under the Press Council Act, the judge said, “Even then, the investigation agency compelled the petitioners to produce their devices and seized the same. In fact, those devices had no information relating to the registration of FIR and uploading it in the public domain,” the judge noted in his order.

Referring to the petition filed by the four journalists, Justice Ilanthiraiyan expressed surprise over the summons issued to the journalists who merely viewed the FIR from the online portal, without conducting inquiries with the police and other officers responsible for having uploaded it on the portal. The SIT had summoned the journalists who logged into the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) portal and viewed the FIR. He also added, “The Supreme Court had mandated uploading of FIRs, on a website that could be accessed by the public, only with respect to cases that were not sensitive in nature. Therefore, the police should not upload FIRs related to sexual offences, insurgency, terrorism and so on. Uploading of the FIR is a clear violation of the order passed by the honourable Supreme Court. It is very unfortunate that the police officers simply said that due to technical glitches, the FIR was uploaded in the official web portal.” The petition also stated that they were harassed by the SIT and warned that their mobile phones would be seized unless they provided screenshots of news items circulated by one of the crime reporters.

Though the petition and the High Court's observations have turned out to be an embarrassment for the SIT, these developments have ensured that the media and public attention is diverted from the primary sexual assault case and the punishment to the accused. Political observers are of the view that the SIT, by concentrating on the leaking of the FIR, has diverted the attention from the primary case. In the past two months, other than the leaking of the FIR and the action on the journalists, the SIT seems to have not made any headway in the case. 

It may be recalled that the SIT took custody of the accused Gunasekaran, initially for seven days. However, nothing much progressed as he got admitted to the government hospital on the very first day on medical grounds. Reports suggested that he had fits and was being treated at the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital after seven days, only to be admitted again. It is unclear whether he is in prison or still undergoing treatment at the hospital.

Revealing the identity of a victim is an offence in a sexual assault case. Though it has been over a month since the incident, it seems the SIT has not made any significant progress in the investigation. The SIT which showed great interest in seizing mobile phones of the journalists tracking the case remains silent on the investigation and the action taken against the accused. 

On the other hand, while the SIT was appointed by the court, ambiguity prevails on who is monitoring the authority of the SIT. Usually, when the court appoints a probe committee, it will be either monitored by the court or by the police chief. But in this case, though the police officers were reportedly handpicked by the Chennai police, their work progress is monitored neither by higher officials nor the court. Incidentally, a day after the mobile phones of the journalists were seized, when the media representatives called on the DGP to file a complaint and express their concerns, DGP Shankar Jiwal reportedly said that he doesn’t have any control over the SIT.

Meanwhile, SIT's actions had a spine-chilling effect on the media,  which has refrained from talking about the primary case and the action taken against the accused who allegedly had links with the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.