Patna HC Restrains Media From Calling Tender Scam Accused ‘Mastermind’, ‘Scamster’ Before Trial [Read Order]

The Patna High Court has restrained media platforms from describing a tender scam accused as guilty or using terms imputing criminal responsibility, while hearing his petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings registered against him by the Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pertaining to a Special Vigilance Unit case registered on 30.04.2025. During the hearing, counsel for the Enforcement Directorate pointed out that although the petitioner had impleaded the ED as a party in a connected writ petition arising from the same FIR, it had not been added as a party in the present quashing application. The Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to add the Enforcement Directorate as a party respondent, and both the ED and the Special Vigilance Unit sought time to file counter affidavits. The Court directed that the Special Vigilance Unit’s counter affidavit must explain the reasons for the delay of one year in conducting the raid after registration of the FIR.

Senior Advocate Ms. Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that although the raid conducted at his residential premises over a year after registration of the FIR yielded nothing incriminating, the petitioner was arrested the same day, following which television channels, newspapers, online news portals and social media handles commenced “extensive and lurid coverage of the case, broadcasting one sided narratives, unverified allegations and prejudicial content that portrays the petitioner as guilty even before commencement of trial.” It was submitted that several prime-time news debates had condemned and vilified the petitioner without affording him any opportunity to present his side, creating an atmosphere inimical to a fair trial.

Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, where the Supreme Court held that “A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law,” as well as M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 686, where it was held improper for the press or electronic media to project a one-sided picture of events that are sub-judice, and Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 603, where the Supreme Court recognised the power of courts to impose prior restraints on publications in exceptional cases involving a real and substantial risk.

The Court perused the annexures filed with the Interlocutory Application and noted several news items, including headlines describing an “indispensable engineer” in connection with an ED probe, reports of searches at the residences of IAS officers in a tender scam, and an article describing the petitioner as a “tender scam accused” who “avoids direct answers, denies wrongdoing.” The Court also noted reporting that attributed to the petitioner the creation of a network to pay commissions to government officials for securing tenders, as well as coverage of an eight-hour cash-counting operation following raids at multiple locations in Patna. The Court observed that such coverage was not confined to mainline press and television, with social media platforms also “flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even initiation of the trial.”

The Court held that the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner could not oust his right to a fair trial, and that while freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is a valued right, it remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including in the interest of decency, morality, defamation and incitement to an offence. The Court observed that “maligning the image of a person who is yet to be held guilty may come within the ambit of defamatory act, immoral act or even an indecent act,” and amounts to pre-judging an issue that remains sub-judice.

The Court also referred to an Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 issued by the Government of India as an advisory on media policy for the police, noted in the proceedings concerning Mahua Moitra (W.P.(C) 2676/2024), which calls for sharing only such information with the media as is professionally necessary, without hampering investigation or compromising the legal and privacy rights of accused persons and victims. The Court recorded that counsel for the ED had also expressed dissatisfaction over the recent trend of media trials in such matters.

Balancing the right to free press recognised in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, (1992) 3 SCC 637, against the petitioner’s right to a fair trial, the Court clarified that it was “not in a view of media gag over the issue,” but would nonetheless direct control over irresponsible reporting that imputes guilt before the commencement of trial.

While permitting all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms to continue reporting factual developments in the case and the proceedings before competent courts, the Court directed that such reporting shall not describe or portray the petitioner as guilty of, or as having committed, the offences alleged, or publish material aimed at determining his criminal liability. The Court further directed that expressions imputing guilt, such as “mastermind,” “scamster” or “kingpin,” shall not be used, and that no media trial shall be conducted on the basis of alleged confessions, investigation material, or unproved documents whose evidentiary value remains undetermined. The Court clarified that the order would not prevent fair, accurate and objective reporting of court proceedings or publication of established facts, and that the restraint would extend to digital publications, online portals, video streaming services, podcasts and social media accounts and channels.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 10.07.2026.

For the Petitioner: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arshadeep Singh Khurana and other Advocates

For the SVU: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate

For the ED: Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Special Counsel, with Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh and other Advocates

Case Title: Rishu Shree v. The State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32409 of 2026

[Read Order]