CrPC Compliance Reinforced: Kerala High Court Rules Against Seizing Journalist's Phone for Crime-Related Information

In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court has issued a ruling emphasizing the proper legal procedure for the seizure of journalists' phones. The court highlighted that the police can only seize a journalist's phone in accordance with the prescribed protocol outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision underscores the court's commitment to safeguarding journalistic rights and protecting the freedom of the press.

Court's Observations:

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, while delivering the judgment in the case of G Vishakan v State of Kerala, noted that journalists often receive various types of information, including details about criminal activities. However, Justice Kunhikrishnan emphasized that the mere possession of such information does not provide grounds for the seizure of a journalist's phone. The court recognized that journalists are an integral part of the fourth estate and play a crucial role in disseminating news after carefully assessing the received information.

Quoting the court, "Telecasting every information even if it is hearsay is not journalism. Simply because the journalist has some information about a crime, the mobile phone cannot be seized without following the procedure contemplated in CrPC." This statement underscores the court's commitment to upholding journalistic principles and ensuring that the seizure of journalists' phones is conducted in adherence to legal provisions.

Procedural Compliance and Journalistic Freedom:

The court firmly stated that even if a journalist's phone is required as part of a criminal investigation, law enforcement authorities must follow the proper legal procedure outlined in the CrPC. 

Justice Kunhikrishnan expressed the opinion that the mobile phone of a journalist should not be seized by the police authorities in violation of the provisions of the CrPC. The court emphasized that if the seizure of a journalist's mobile phone is deemed necessary for a criminal case, appropriate procedures must be followed before taking such action.

Background of the Case:

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by journalist G Vishakan, associated with the Malayalam daily, Mangalam Daily, which covers political and current affairs. In his petition, Vishakan alleged that on July 7, three police officers forcefully entered his house without providing a search warrant and conducted an extensive search for over an hour. The petitioner claimed that the officers did not provide any reason for the search at the time.

Later, one of the police officers contacted Vishakan, requesting him to surrender his mobile phone. Subsequently, he was issued an undated receipt for the seizure of his phone. The journalist contended that the police had not obtained a search warrant under Section 93 of the CrPC, as required by law. He further argued that he had not been issued a Section 41A notice, which is also mandated under the CrPC.

Protecting Journalistic Rights:

Vishakan asserted that he was not named as an accused in any crime, and no incriminating evidence had been collected against him. He clarified that his professional relationship with one of the accused was solely a result of his journalistic duties and should not be interpreted as colluding with the accused. The journalist's plea also alleged that the actions of the police officials were influenced by two members of the legislative assembly (MLAs).

Given the petitioner's unsuccessful attempts to address these concerns through the appropriate channels, he approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the State Police officials to refrain from harassing him or searching his house. Vishakan also sought the return of his mobile phone and SIM card.

Court's Directive:

During the hearing, the court directed the concerned Station House Officer to submit a statement clarifying the circumstances under which the petitioner's mobile phone was seized. The court will consider the matter further on July 21, allowing both parties an opportunity to present their arguments.

Conclusion:

The Kerala High Court's ruling, reaffirming the significance of following proper legal procedures for the seizure of journalists' phones, marks a pivotal moment in protecting journalistic rights and upholding the freedom of the press. By emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the provisions outlined in the CrPC, the court has taken a strong stance in safeguarding journalists' rights and ensuring their freedom to report without undue interference. This judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity and the legal framework that upholds it.