New Delhi: Aiming to protect the rights of both the accused and the victims and curb the phenomenon of “media trials”, the Supreme Court of India, on 15 January, gave all states and Union territories a final three-month window to frame comprehensive policies for how police communicate with the media during criminal investigations, bringing to a close its hearings of a 1999 petition.
In 1999, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) alleged premeditated murders by police in Maharashtra to eliminate suspected criminals without trial and, among other demands, asked for a national policy to govern how police plan and report encounters to prevent future abuses.
Last week, a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh, in its order, said that the policies should be modelled on a detailed manual prepared by Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who assisted the Supreme Court in the case.
The bench expressed its dissatisfaction with the slow progress made by regional governments thus far, noting, “Notwithstanding the time granted by this court on earlier occasions, the states have not shown adequate interest in taking note of the manual and doing the needful.”
It also directed the court registry to upload the manual prepared by Sankaranarayaran—the 61-page ‘Police Manual for Media Briefing’—on its official website within two weeks.
A legacy case
The roots of this judicial intervention trace back to 1999, when the PUCL approached the court, reporting 99 police encounters in Mumbai between 1995 and 1997 that resulted in approximately 135 deaths. It highlighted that the victims in these cases invariably had gunshot wounds to vital organs, while not a single police officer sustained injuries.
While a 2014 Supreme Court judgment established guidelines for encounter killings, the court kept one vital aspect of the case alive—the regulation of police-media interactions during active investigations.
In September 2023, the court observed that existing guidelines, which were over a decade old, were woefully inadequate for the current landscape of high-speed television, print, and social media coverage.
The then-bench warned that unregulated police disclosures could irreversibly damage reputations, influence public opinion, and cause secondary trauma to victims, particularly in cases involving children or sexual violence. The objective was to ensure that police disclosures remain objective and do not suggest the guilt of an accused person before a trial concludes, it observed.
Also Read: Indian judiciary is letting citizens down. When liberty is in danger, judges are looking away
The amicus manual
Tasked with assisting the court, Amicus Curiae Gopal Sankaranarayanan developed the ‘Police Manual for Media Briefing’, considering the perspectives of the Union of India and integrating international best practices.
The manual aims to establish a “principled, rights-compatible, and investigation-safe framework” for police communication.
It aligns the public’s interest in information with the “dignity, privacy, and fair-trial rights of victims, witnesses, and suspects”, as well as the “integrity of police operations”.
A cornerstone of the manual is the requirement that every media briefing must satisfy four fundamental tests before releasing information to the public.
First, legality—there must be a clear legal basis for the disclosure, with no statutory bars or court orders prohibiting it.
Second, necessity—disclosure is only permitted if a concrete public interest objective, such as public safety or correcting harmful rumours, cannot be achieved otherwise.
Third, proportionality—content must be narrowly tailored, disclosing only what is strictly necessary and minimising privacy breaches.
Last, accountability—content must be vetted and approved by designated briefing cells to ensure veracity.
The manual explicitly states that police should “not comment on the merits of a case, disclose evidentiary theories, publish alleged confessions, or quote witness accounts”. Instead, officers are encouraged to use “neutral language and holding statements” that report only procedural milestones, such as “FIR registered” or “search conducted”, without implying guilt.
Other highlights
The manual is particularly stringent regarding the protection of vulnerable parties.
It mandates that police must withhold names, faces, and “jigsaw identifiers”—data points that could indirectly reveal a person’s identity of survivors of sexual offences and children.
It quotes specific legal protections under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Juvenile Justice Act, reinforcing that “no police release shall include names, relational descriptors (or) locality details” that might lead to identification.
Furthermore, the manual prohibits the “spectacle” of arrests, stating that police should “never parade the suspects” or release “mugshots (and) walk-through visuals”.
The manual proposes the creation of a Media Briefing Cell (MBC) at various levels of police hierarchy to institutionalise these standards. Each jurisdiction must designate a spokesperson (SPOX), and all external communications must flow through this office to ensure “legal and operational discipline”.
The MBC is tasked with maintaining a 24/7 roster and adhering to strict service level agreements (SLAs), such as issuing a “holding statement within 30–60 minutes of a major incident”. The workflow for any disclosure follows a rigorous path of “intake, draft, legal vet, approve, publish, and archive”.
The manual highlights the importance of the “legal vetting officer”, who must screen content for privacy risks, sub judice constraints, and operational sensitivity.
Digital age governance
Acknowledging the “social media age”, the manual includes a dedicated chapter on ‘Social Media Governance’. It mandates that official handles must be used only for factual updates and safety advisories, prohibiting “political content, commentary on ongoing cases, or debate with individuals”.
To combat the spread of misinformation, the manual introduces “Myth–Fact” cards.
These are described as “short, time-stamped clarifications countering specific falsehoods”. The manual advises that when misinformation threatens public order, police should “respond with ‘Myth–Fact’ cards that (a) state the verified fact, (b) briefly identify the rumour without amplifying it, and (c) point to official channels for updates”.
The manual also provides a detailed roadmap for what can be disclosed at different stages of a criminal investigation.
Pre-FIR, “disclose general incident types and safety steps; withhold all names, motives, or theories”.
Post-FIR registration, “disclose offence sections and time/place basics; withhold complainant identity and narrative allegations”.
After the investigation starts, “focus on updates required for public safety; withhold evidence theories, forensic details, and CCTV snippets”.
Once there has been an arrest/remand, “confirm the arrest and due process; withhold confession claims and ‘perp walk’ visuals”.
In the trial phase, “maintain ‘court-first discipline’, refraining from any comment on the merits of the case or witness credibility”.
The Supreme Court’s present order aligns with the “90-day adoption plan” outlined in the manual. This roadmap suggests “establishing institutional infrastructure and notifying MBCs” in the first 0–30 days. “Capacity building through structured training and mock briefings” in the next 31–60 days. “Validation through live drills and the publication of compliance dashboards” in the last 61–90 days.
The manual clarifies that unauthorised leaks or disclosures are violations of conduct rules. It notes that “deliberate leaks, unauthorised statements, or political messaging attract proportionate disciplinary action”. The report categorises violations from “negligence” to “gross misconduct”, with penalties ranging from remedial training to suspension and criminal prosecution for breach of official secrecy.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)