Full Judgment
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) One Babloo Srivastav is in judicial custody in a case under section 302 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On October 20, India Today, a newsmagazine, moved an application for permission to interview him and to take his photographs. The learned trial judge allowed the said application by passing the following order:
'FILE taken up today on the application on behalf of India Today c/o Living Media India Ltd., for interview and photographs of Babloo Srivastava. Heard. Permission is granted. He/She is allowed to interview and take photographs of 0m Parkash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava today at 6.00 P.M. or on Wednesday/Thursday at 11.00 a.m. Orders are given Dasti. Mrs.Charu Lata Joshi and Shri Sarad Sexena will interview and take photographs as per application.'
(2) The State, finding the order not acceptable, has preferred this petition.
(3) MR.S.K.AGGARWAL who has put in appearance on behalf of the State, has assailed the legality of the order on two grounds. As per him the order could not be passed without notice to and at the back of Babloo Srivastava and without his consent. His second contention is that the publication of the interview would amount to commission of Contempt of the trial court.
(4) As regards the first contention, Mr.Rajiv Dhawan appearing for the newsmagazine has submitted that the counsel for Babloo Srivastava was present during the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and had informed the court that the accused had no objection to the allowing of the application. Unfortunately, the order of the learned trial Judge is silent about it but then I do not think that the objection poses any unsurmountable hurdle. Any such permission has to be subject to the willingness of the accused and this can be clarified even at this stage.
(5) As regard the second objection we do not know as to what are going to be the contents of the interview or of the publication, if any. Under the circumstances it would be difficult to say at this stage whether publication, if any, of the interview, if given, would amount to contempt of the trial court.
(6) For the reasons recorded above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is made clear that the interview and/or photographs of Babloo Srivastav would be taken only if he expresses his willingness and not otherwise. If given, the respondent newsmagazine is expected to publish the interview with a sense of propriety and balance and without offending the law of Contempt of Courts or impairing the administration of justice. With this the petition is dismissed.