[ High Court of Judicature at Patna ]

Patna HC Bars Media from Calling Accused ‘Mastermind’ or ‘Scamster’ Before Trial Begins

Patna High Court restrains print, digital and social media from imputing guilt to an accused in a Bihar vigilance case, citing fair trial rights and sub-judice status.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Judicature at Patna — 26 June 2026 — 6 min read

Justice Ansul, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Patna, issued an interim media restraint order on 24 June 2026 in a quashing petition filed by Rishu Shree, an accused in Special Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025. The court directed all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms to refrain from describing the petitioner as guilty, using expressions such as “mastermind, scamster, kingpin” or conducting media trials based on unproved material. The order stopped short of a blanket media gag, expressly permitting factual reporting of court proceedings. The bench also directed the petitioner to implead the Enforcement Directorate as a respondent and called on both the Special Vigilance Unit and the ED to file counter-affidavits, with the SVU specifically required to explain a delay of over one year between FIR registration and the conduct of raids.

The Vigilance Case and the Arrest

The underlying FIR is Vigilance Unit Case No. 05 of 2025, registered on 30 April 2025 by the Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar. The petitioner, Rishu Shree, son of Vinod Kumar Sinha and a resident of Mithapur, Patna, was not arrested at the time of registration. Raids on his residential premises were conducted only on 27 May 2026 — more than a year after the FIR — and he was arrested on the same date.

Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ms. Nandita Rao, told the court that nothing incriminating was recovered during the raid. Despite this, she submitted, television channels, newspapers, online news portals and social media handles commenced what she characterised as extensive and one-sided coverage immediately after the arrest.

The petitioner had also filed Cr.WJC No. 1046 of 2025 in connection with the same FIR, in which the ED had been added as a party. In the present petition, however, the ED had not been impleaded. Counsel for the ED, Mr. Zohaib Hossain, appeared and pointed this out, prompting the court to direct the petitioner to add the Enforcement Directorate as a party respondent.

The Media Coverage Complained Of

The court examined annexures filed as Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2026. The news items placed on record included reports with headings such as “Bihar's Curious Case of an indispensable engineer: What an ED probe found” and “Bihar Police searches houses of two IAS officers over tender scam.” One report carried the petitioner's photograph alongside the caption “Tender scam accused Rishu avoids direct answers, denies wrongdoing.” Another stated that the petitioner “created a network to pay a decent commission to government officials for securing tenders.” A further report described ED officials counting cash for eight hours using four machines at seven locations in Patna.

The court observed that these items were not confined to mainstream press or television. Social media platforms, it noted, were “flooded with news declaring the petitioner a guilty person without even initiation of the trial.” Counsel for the ED also expressed what the court recorded as displeasure at the nature of reporting and the recent trend of media trials.

The Legal Framework the Bench Applied

Senior Counsel Ms. Rao relied on three Supreme Court decisions. In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, the Supreme Court stated that “a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law.” In M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 686, the Supreme Court held that it is not proper for the press or electronic media to project a one-sided picture of events in matters that are sub-judice. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603, the Supreme Court recognised that courts have the power to impose prior restraints on publications in exceptional cases where a real and substantial risk exists.

The court also referred to an Office Memorandum dated 1 April 2010 issued by the Government of India, which functions as an advisory on the Media Policy of Police. That memorandum, considered by the Delhi High Court in the Mahua Moitra matter decided on 23 February 2024 in W.P.(C) 2676/2024, states that while sharing information with the public through media, only professionally necessary information should be shared without hampering investigation or prejudicing the legal and privacy rights of the accused.

The bench was equally conscious of the other side of the balance. It referred to Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641, which established the foundational importance of a free press, and to LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.), (1992) SCC 637, where the Supreme Court held that in a democratic set-up, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny it must be frowned upon.

Having weighed both positions, the court stated it was “clearly not in a view of media gag over the issue” but would direct control over irresponsible reporting and imputation of guilt before any trial had commenced. The bench also noted that freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including restrictions in the interest of decency, morality, defamation and incitement to an offence. It observed that maligning a person yet to be found guilty may itself fall within the ambit of a defamatory, immoral or indecent act.

Directions Issued

Pending consideration of the quashing petition, the court issued the following directions applicable to all print, electronic, digital and social media platforms:

Platforms are at liberty to report factual developments concerning the case and proceedings before competent courts.
No platform shall describe the petitioner as guilty of the offences alleged.
No platform shall portray the petitioner as having committed the offences alleged.
No platform shall publish or broadcast material aimed at determining criminal liability.
No platform shall use expressions imputing guilt such as “mastermind, scamster, kingpin” or equivalent descriptions conveying criminal responsibility.
No platform shall conduct media trials based on alleged confessions, investigation material, or unproved documents whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined.
Nothing in the order prevents fair, accurate and objective reporting of court proceedings or publication of facts.

The court expressly extended the restraint to digital publications, online portals, video streaming services, podcasts, social media accounts and channels, and other internet-based platforms.

On the counter-affidavit directed from the SVU, the court specifically required an explanation for the delay of one year in conducting the raid after registration of the FIR.

Order

The court directed the petitioner to implead the Enforcement Directorate as a party respondent. Both the SVU and the ED were granted time to file counter-affidavits. The interim media restraint directions set out above were issued pending further hearing. The matter was listed for 10 July 2026.