Facts in Brief

The Petitioner, Sheela Barse, was a Bombay-based journalist who had sought permission to interview women prisoners in the Maharashtra jails. When she wanted to conduct tape-recorded interviews, she was asked to take down notes only. Later, the Petitioner was informed that the grant of permission for an interview was a matter of the discretion of the Inspector General, and that such interviews were ordinarily allowed only to research scholars.

The Petitioner then made a grievance over the withdrawal of the permission, and pleaded that it is the citizen’s right to know whether the Government is administering the jails in accordance with law. The Petitioner’s letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Arguments

According to the Petitioner, Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 guaranteed to every citizen reasonable access to information about the institutions that formulate, enact, implement and enforce the laws of the land. It was argued that every citizen had a right to receive such information through public institutions, including the media, as it was physically impossible for every citizen to be informed about all issues of public importance individually and personally. She contended that, as a journalist, she had the right to collect and disseminate information to citizens.

The Respondents opposed the petition, pleading that interviews with prisoners were governed by the rules made in the Maharashtra Prison Manual, and since the Petitioner did not satisfy the prescription, it was justified in revoking the permission to have interviews with prisoners. It was also submitted that, normally, the prison authorities did not allow interviews with prisoners unless the person seeking the interview was a research scholar studying for a Ph.D., or intended to visit the prison as a part of the field work of a curriculum prescribed for a post-graduate course, etc.

Further, it was submitted that there were no rules for permitting interviews except to relatives and legal advisers, for facilitating the defence of prisoners. The State contended that if an unguided and uncontrolled right of visit were provided to citizens, it would be difficult to maintain discipline, and the very purpose of keeping delinquents in prison would be frustrated.

Judgment

The Court held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guaranteed to all citizens freedom of speech and expression, was not the point in issue; but the enlarged meaning given to the provisions of Article 21 by the Court in a few earlier cases was found to be relevant. The Apex Court stated that “life” in Article 21 had to be given an extended meaning, wherein those citizens who were detained in prisons, either as undertrials or as convicts, were also entitled to the benefit of the guarantees, subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court observed that the public gaze should be directed to such matters, and that pressmen, as friends of society and public-spirited citizens, should have access not only to information but also to interviews. The Court therefore permitted public access to prisons.

The Court, giving the dividing line, observed that citizens did not have any right either under Article 19(1)(a) or Article 21 to enter into jails for the collection of information; but in order that the guarantee of the fundamental right under Article 21 might be available to the citizens detained in jails, it became necessary to permit citizens’ access to information, as also interviews with prisoners. Interviews become necessary, as otherwise the correct information may not be collected; but such access had to be controlled and regulated.

Hence, the Petitioner’s claim that she was entitled to an uncontrolled interview was not accepted. The Court held that there may be cases where such tape-recording was necessary, but the Court made it clear that tape-recording should be subject to the special permission of the appropriate authority. The Petitioner was accordingly directed to make an application to the prescribed authority for the requisite permission, which was to be dealt with by the authorities in the light of the guidelines laid down in the case.

For the Common Man

The Apex Court permitted public access to the jails for the purposes of interviewing, and declared that the same was not to be an unrestricted and uncontrolled right. The Court directed that this right was to be guided by several factors, including abidance by reasonable prison rules and jail manuals. The case also provided guidelines which the authorities have to keep in mind while considering an application made by press people for the purposes of taking any interview of a prisoner.

It has further to be understood that interviews cannot be forced, and the willingness of the prisoners to be interviewed would always be insisted upon. The interviews which are taken have further to be cross-checked and verified by the authorities before they become public, so as to ensure that only the correct information ultimately reaches the masses.