Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court

Sikkim High Court, in a significant ruling, held that reporting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) does not violate an accused's right to privacy, as an FIR constitutes a public document. A bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed that fair and accurate reporting of an FIR without judging the alleged act cannot be termed a "media trial," adding that courts should refrain from dragging the press into litigation when journalists are performing their duties fairly.

The petitioner, facing investigation under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), approached the High Court seeking to restrain the State Police from disclosing investigative material to the media. The plea was prompted by a news report published by a local outlet, Sikkim Chronicle, which detailed the registration and contents of the FIR based on a Police Daily Situation Report. The petitioner sought the removal of the publications, alleging an unauthorized disclosure that resulted in a trial by media and a violation of his privacy.

The primary question before the court was whether the publication of the petitioner's name and the contents of the FIR by the media violated his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21. The court was also called upon to determine whether such news reporting constitutes a prejudicial "media trial" warranting a gag order against the press.

FIR Is A Public Document

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar, the High Court reiterated that an FIR is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now corresponding to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Consequently, the court noted that the contents of such a document can be legally procured and inspected by the public.

No Absolute Right To Privacy In Public Records

Applying the principles laid down in R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Justice Pradhan held that once information enters the domain of public records, the right to privacy extinguishes regarding that specific information. The court observed that the publication by the media outlet was entirely unobjectionable as it was squarely based on official police records, making it a legitimate subject for press commentary.

"Youth Bar Association" Mandates Disclosure, Not Secrecy

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's directives in Youth Bar Association of India to argue for the non-disclosure of the FIR contents. Rejecting this contention, the High Court clarified that the apex court had directed the uploading of FIRs on public websites within 24 hours to benefit the accused, not to mandate administrative secrecy.

"Otiose" To Read Secrecy Into Supreme Court Guidelines

The bench noted that the power to withhold the uploading of "sensitive" FIRs rests with senior police officers, but this does not translate to a blanket ban on identifying the accused. "If what the learned Counsel argues before this Court is to be upheld then the direction to upload the FIR in public websites given by the Supreme Court would be otiose," the bench remarked.

Fair Reporting Is Not A Media Trial

Addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding a parallel media trial, the court emphasized the role of the press as the fourth pillar of democracy, tasked with keeping a robust and informed citizenry. The bench ruled that reporting a crime and the lodging of an FIR is a core part of journalistic duty under Article 19(1)(a), provided the identity of the victim is protected and the media does not usurp the court's role in pronouncing guilt.

"If the press and the media are doing their duty fairly and accurately I am also of the view that the Courts should restrain itself from dragging them into Courts on the mere asking."

High Threshold For Postponement Of Publication

While acknowledging the Supreme Court's precedent in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation regarding the postponement of publication to ensure a fair trial, the High Court held that such relief is highly fact-dependent. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any genuine apprehension that the news reports would infringe upon his right to a fair trial under Article 21.

Publication Of Minor Son's Identity Justified By Consent

Regarding the petitioner's plea to protect his minor son's identity, the court scrutinized the news report and discovered it was a verbatim extract of a communication sent by the son himself. The court noted that the son had voluntarily approached the media outlet to present his father's defense, characterizing it as a "mature effort" to place their side of the story before the public, thereby validating the publication.

Concluding that the media outlet had fairly reported both the contents of the FIR and the defense offered by the petitioner's son, the court found no grounds to impose reasonable restrictions on the press. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the accompanying interim application in their entirety.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026