If TV Channel Has Evidence, Inform The Investigator: Bombay HC Rejects Republic TV’s Contention That It Was Doing “Investigative Journalism” In SSR Case

first_imgTop StoriesIf TV Channel Has Evidence, Inform The Investigator: Bombay HC Rejects Republic TV’s Contention That It Was Doing “Investigative Journalism” In SSR Case Akshita Saxena18 Jan 2021 11:00 PMShare This – xIn a significant judgment on the menace of ‘media trials’, the Bombay High Court has observed that if a TV Channel/ News agency has any incriminating material/ evidence against any person in connection to an alleged crime, it has a bounden duty to provide such information to the concerned Police officer. “If indeed the channel is in possession of information that could assist…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn a significant judgment on the menace of ‘media trials’, the Bombay High Court has observed that if a TV Channel/ News agency has any incriminating material/ evidence against any person in connection to an alleged crime, it has a bounden duty to provide such information to the concerned Police officer. “If indeed the channel is in possession of information that could assist the investigator, it ought not to be part of a news coverage but it would be the duty of such channel to provide the information that it has to the police under sections 37 to 39 of the Cr.P.C. to facilitate a proper investigation,” a Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankat Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni observed. The remarks were made while deciding the culpability of reporting done by Republic TV and Times Now against Mumbai Police in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case. The Court was of the opinion that the press/media has the ability to mould the opinion of the society by publicity of certain facets of an investigative process. Such publications, the Court observed, could give rise to strong public emotions and prejudice the case of one party or the other, and thus the media ought to refrain from taking stances in its presentations which are biased or show a predilection for a particular point of view. It may be noted that Republic TV had argued before the Court that its Reporters had gathered incriminating materials that could connect the accused with the offence of murder and that the channel had honestly endeavoured to place facts for the information of its viewers, which Mumbai Police had been suppressing. “To our mind, the contention proceeds on a clear misunderstanding of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.,” the Bench observed stating that in case the media gets hold of real incriminating material during the course of “investigative journalism”, it ought to not publish it but rather hand over the same to the investigating officer. In this context, the Bench referred to Section 37 and Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that provide instances for Public when to assist Magistrates and police and Public to give information of certain offences.Bombay High Court rejects arguments of #RepublicTV that it was doing “investigative journalism” in SSR case.If a channel has information that could assist the investigator, it should not be part of news coverage, instead channel should inform the investigator about it – HC pic.twitter.com/GiOkTGhtli— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 18, 2021 In conclusion, the Court held that the media coverage done by the Republic TV and Times Now against Mumbai police in this case is prima facie contemptuous. Some Reporting Of Republic TV & Times Now In SSR Case ‘Prima Facie Contemptuous’, Says Bombay High Court It also observed that the campaign against Mumbai Police of having suppressed facts appears to be “ill-founded”. Reliance was placed on Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors., where the Supreme Court recorded a prima facie satisfaction that records of the SSR Death case do not prima facie suggest any wrong doing by the Mumbai Police (although obstruction to the Bihar Police team could have been avoided so as not to give rise to any suspicion on the bonafide of the enquiry). Inter alia, the Bench laid down a list of ‘indicative but not exhaustive’ list of reports which tend to cause prejudice to ongoing investigation, that me be read in the reports below: What Kind Of Reporting Amounts To ‘Media Trial’? Bombay High Court Gives GuidelinesMedia Trial During Investigation Interferes With Administration Of Justice; Amounts To Contempt Of Court : Bombay High Court Click Here To Read/ Download JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more

Banning ‘No DSS’ in adverts is a waste of time, says leading solicitor

first_imgHome » News » Banning ‘No DSS’ in adverts is a waste of time, says leading solicitor previous nextRegulation & LawBanning ‘No DSS’ in adverts is a waste of time, says leading solicitorJoanne Young of Ashfords LLP says UK’s millions of risk-averse small-portfolio landlords will sell up rather than face the hassle and risk of renting to tenants on benefits.Nigel Lewis12th March 20191 Comment2,625 Views Joanne Young is a Legal Director in the Property Litigation Team at leading law firm Ashfords LLP and specialises in housing management.“Earlier this month the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a number of measures aimed at further tackling homelessness, including funding to help potential new tenants with rental or first month rent payments. However, it was a different measure that dominated the headlines and could prove more controversial than intended.The Government has set its sights on tackling landlords and letting agents who (in its words) ‘potentially discriminate’ against tenants who are on benefits. The Government says just under 890,000 of the 4.5 million private renting tenants are in receipt of benefit – a figure the Government is seemingly keen to increase.The proposal is that Government will meet with representatives from across the lettings spectrum to discuss “clamping down” on “blanket ban” adverts – with the potential of having a complete ban on “no DSS” adverts in the future.The ideology that lies behind the proposal is hard to argue against. The rise of street homelessness is apparent in every town in the country – and hidden homelessness and ‘sofa surfing’ has also increased.The far from smooth implementation of Universal Credit has been well-publicised. Trying to encourage private landlords to accept tenants who are in receipt of benefits and give those individuals an opportunity to obtain a place they can call home is an entirely admirable aim.Note of cautionHowever, I cannot but help to sound a note of caution. I have attended numerous landlord events over the years where entirely well-meaning and enthusiastic representatives from the Department for Work and Pensions who try to ‘sell’ the benefits system to private landlords. It is a tough gig! Many private landlords in England are small-scale, their lettings portfolio may only comprise one or two properties.Letting is not their ‘business’ and they do not have the time, resources, or frankly the inclination to spend time chasing tenants (or the benefits agencies) about unpaid rent.They want tenants who will pay rent in full and on time, with no risk that the rent they receive could be clawed back from them in some circumstances. They want tenants who seemingly have the financial means to be pursued in the event damage is caused to their property.Rightly or wrongly, this does therefore lead many private landlords to prefer tenants who will not be relying on benefits to pay the rent.Well meaningFor these reasons, I am of the view that the Government may therefore be wasting its well-meaning time in this venture. Even if there were a complete ban on landlords and their agents excluding benefit recipients when advertising for properties, I suspect that, once the potential tenant’s financial situation was made known, many landlords would refuse to proceed with the letting.All that a ban would do therefore is simply waste the time of both parties in cases where a landlord would not consider a let to a benefit recipient.  Only a complete ban on landlords being able to refuse tenants on benefits would tackle this problem – but given many small-scale private landlords are already leaving the market, such a ban would almost certainly see a larger exodus.It will be interesting to see how this pans out.”    ministry of housing communities and local government Universal Credit DSS March 12, 2019Nigel LewisOne commentJulian Blackmore, BNE BNE 12th March 2019 at 9:12 amAt last someone that shares my common sense. Now watch Malthouse and co totally ignore common sense and pick on landlords even more. I’d lose about 75% of landlords if they did this, me included.But hey, what do the government get right anyway? – pretty much zero.Log in to ReplyWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles Letting agent fined £11,500 over unlicenced rent-to-rent HMO3rd May 2021 BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021last_img read more