The petitioner argued that even someone who is being prosecuted has a right to the dignity and privacy that are protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Until the end of his trial in the case, a rape suspect has petitioned the Kerala High Court for orders to maintain and protect his right to privacy and dignity.
As a result, he has asked for permission to remove the articles about him that were published on The New Indian Express and the bail decisions that were published on Indian Kanoon.
Additionally, he has asked the central government to issue guidelines protecting the petitioner’s privacy.
The petitioner has expressed serious concerns about how media coverage of criminal matters affects the rights of both the accused and the victim, particularly the right to a fair trial and the assumption of innocent.
The doctrine of “innocence until proven guilty” is openly disregarded, and the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial is trampled upon, according to the plea. “It is witnessed in many cases that media blatantly points fingers at anyone and cast aspersions on any institution in the name of fundamental right guaranteed to them,” the plea reads.
The petitioner was charged with a crime for allegedly committing offences included by Sections 376(2)(1) and 376(2), which are crimes punishable by rape (n).
The Kerala High Court granted bail for his release after more than a month in detention.
The petitioner’s identity, some bare-bones information about his wife and kids, and exaggerated details of the claimed activities were all included in pieces about the case that were published in the meantime on the internet platform of the publication The New Indian Express.
The petitioner claims there was a misrepresentation of the facts because the allegations in the complainant’s impleading applications were presented as the justifications for the Sessions Court’s denial of bail before he went to the High Court.
The petitioner has also objected to the Kerala High Court’s decision to give him bail being fully published on the Indian Kanoon website.
His name and complete address, where he lives with his wife and two young girls, are listed in the article, according to the plea.
Because the matter is still in the preliminary stages and has not yet been assigned to the Sessions Court for trial, it is argued that this is extremely detrimental to the petitioner.
Additionally, the petitioner’s professional network shared the internet pieces, which forced him to resign from some of his positions with the businesses he worked for.
The argument makes the point that there is a speedier and unchecked spread of information, and frequently false information, in the age of rapid technological advancement.
This has an impact on the public’s trust in the legal system, and the fundamental tenet of criminal law that a person is innocent until proven guilty is about to be challenged.
The petitioner has asked the High Court for orders to preserve his dignity, reputation, and privacy up until the end of his trial on these grounds and others.
Advocates Geo Paul, Prem Kammath, CR Pramod, Radhika Rajasekharan, S Ashok Kumar, Simi V, Jacob George Pallath, Naveen TU, and Anil K Vincent are on the petitioner’s side.
Read more legal news here.