{"id":5004,"date":"1987-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987"},"modified":"2015-06-25T04:20:03","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T22:50:03","slug":"sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","title":{"rendered":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1988 (3)\t15<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHEELA BARSE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/09\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1988 (3)\t15\n\n\nACT:\n     Permission to  journalists to  interview prisoners\t and\ntape-record  the   interviews,\tguarantees   under  Articles\n19(1)(a) and 21-Benefits thereof for all the citizens.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Sheela  Barse,   a\t free\tlance\tjournalist,   sought\npermission  to\t interview  the\t  female  prisoners  in\t the\nMaharashtra State  Jails. The  permission was granted by the\nInspector-General of  Prisons. As,  how ever, the journalist\nstarted tape-recording\ther interviews\twith the  prisoners,\nthe permission to interview was withdrawn. Feeling aggrieved\nby the\tcancellation of the permission, the journalist moved\nthis Court  in its  writ jurisdiction  on the  ground that a\ncitizen has  a right  to know under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21\nof the\tConstitution, if the Government is administering the\njails in  accordance with  law, and  that the  Press  has  a\nspecial responsibility\tto  collect  information  on  public\nissues to educate the people. The permission in question was\ncancelled, as  stated by the Inspector-General of Prisons in\nhis counter-affidavit  to the  Writ Petition,  on the ground\ninter alia  that the  permission had  been  granted  to\t the\npetitioner in contravention of the Maharashtra Prison Manual\nand the\t rules made  thereunder, which govern the interviews\nwith the  prisoners; the  petitioner, an  amateur free lance\njournalist not\temployed by  any responsible  newspaper, was\nnot covered by the said rules. The respondent also contended\nthat the  Articles of  the Constitution\t referred to  by the\npetitioner were not attracted to the case.\n     Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: The\tterm 'life'  in Article 21 covers the living\nconditions of  the prisoners,  prevailing in  the jails. The\nprisoners are also entitled to the benefit of the guarantees\nprovided in the Article subject to reason able restrictions.\nIt is  necessary that public gaze should be permitted on the\nprisoners, and\tthe pressmen  as friends  of the society and\npublic spirited\t citizens should  have access to information\nabout, and  interviews with,  the prisoners. But such access\nhas to\tbe controlled  and regulated.  The petitioner is not\nentitled to uncontrolled interviews. The factual information\ncollected as a result of the interviews should usually be\n211\ncross-checked with  the authorities, so that a wrong picture\nof a  situation may  not be published. Disclosure of correct\ninformation  is\t  necessary,  but   there  is\tto   be\t  no\ndissemination  of   wrong  information.\t  Persons,  who\t get\npermission  to\t interview  have   to  abide  by  reasonable\nrestrictions. As  for tape-recording  the interviews,  there\nmay be\tcases where  such tape-recording  is necessary,\t but\ntape-recording is to be subject to special permission of the\nappropriate authority.\tThere may  be  some  individuals  or\nclass of persons in the prisons with whom interviews may not\nbe permitted  for reasons  indicated by this Court in Prabha\nDutt v.\t Union of  India &  ors.<\/a>, [1982]  1 S.C.R. 1184. The\ninterviews cannot  be forced  upon anyone and willingness of\nthe prisoners  to be  interviewed is  always to\t be insisted\nupon. There may also be certain other cases, where, for good\nreasons,  permission  to  interview  the  prisoners  may  be\nwithheld, which\t situations can\t be considered\tas and\twhen\nthey arise. [215C; 217F; 218B, E-H; 219A-B]\n     The  petitioner   can  make  a  fresh  application\t for\npermission to  interview the prisoners, which is to be dealt\nwith  in   accordance  with   the   guidelines\t laid\tdown\nhereinabove. [219B]\n     Prabha Dutt  v. Union  of India & ors.<\/a>, [1982] 1 S.C.R.\n1184; Sunil  Batra v.  Delhi Administrator,<\/a>  [1979] 1 S.C.R.\n392  and  Francis  Coralie  Mulin  v.  Administrator,  Union\nTerritory of  Delhi and\t ors.<\/a>, [19811 1 S.C.C. 608, referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTlON: Writ Petition No. 1053 of 1982.
\n     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n     Suleman Khurshid and K.K. Luthra for the Petitioner.
\n     S.B. Bhasme,  A.M. Khanwilkar  and A.S.  Bhasme for the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     L.R. Singh for the Intervener.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RANGANATH MISRA,  J. Petitioner  is a Bombay-based free
\nlance journalist  who had  sought  permission  to  interview
\nwomen prisoners\t in the\t Maharashtra jails  and on 6.5.1982,
\nthe Inspector-General  of Prisons of the State permitted her
\nto do so in respect of female prisoners lodged in the Bombay
\nCentral Jail,  the Yerawada  Central Jail  at Pune  and\t the
\nKolhapur District Jail. When the petitioner started
\n212<\/span>
\ntape-recording her  interviews with  the  prisoners  at\t the
\nBombay Central\tJail, she  was advised instead to keep notes
\nonly of\t interviews. When the petitioner raised objection on
\nthis  score,   the  Inspector-General\tof  Prisons   orally
\nindicated  that\t  he  had   changed  his  mind.\t Later,\t the
\npetitioner was\tinformed that  grant of\t permission to\thave
\ninterview was  a matter\t of  discretion\t of  the  Inspector-
\nGeneral\t and  such  interviews\tare  ordinarily\t allowed  to
\nresearch scholars  only. Petitioner  has made grievance over
\nthe withdrawal\tof the permission and has pleaded that it is
\nthe citizen’s  right to\t know if Government is administering
\nthe jails  in accordance  with law.  Petitioner’s letter was
\ntreated\t as   a\t writ  petition\t under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Return  has   been\t made  to  the\trule  nisi  and\t the
\nInspector-General of  Prisons in  his affidavit\t has pleaded
\nthat the  petitioner is\t a free\t lance journalist and is not
\nemployed by any responsible newspaper. The permission issued
\nin  favour   of\t the  petitioner  was  under  administrative
\nmisunderstanding   and\t  mistaken   belief   and   was\t  in
\ncontravention of  the Maharashtra  Prison Manual.  When this
\nfact was  discovered the  permission was  withdrawn. It\t has
\nbeen pleaded  that interview  with prisoners  is governed by
\nthe rules  made in  the Maharashtra  Prison Manual  and\t the
\npetitioner does\t not satisfy  the prescription therein so as
\nto justify  grant of  permission for  having interviews with
\nprisoners. The\tInspector-General  wrote  a  letter  to\t the
\npetitioner  on\t31st  May,  1982,  explaining  therein\tthat
\nnormally the prison authorities do not allow interviews with
\nthe prisoners  unless the  person  seeking  interview  is  a
\nresearch scholar studying for Ph. D. Or intends to visit the
\nprison as  a part of his field work of curriculum prescribed
\nfor post  graduate course  etc. The letter further indicated
\nthat there  was no rules for permitting interviews except to
\nthe relatives and legal advisers for facilitating defence of
\nprisoners. The\tInspector-General further  indicated in\t his
\nletter that  there was\tno inherent  right of journalists to
\nelicit information from prisoners.\n<\/p>\n
     The counter  affidavit further indicated that the State
\nGovernment has\tprescribed a  set  of  rules  known  as\t the
\nMaharashtra Visitors  of Prisons  Rules, 1962.\tA  Board  of
\nVisitors  is  constituted  for\tevery  jail  and  the  Board
\nconsists  of   both  ex-officio\t visitors  and\tnon-official
\nvisitors appointed  by the  State Government. The members of
\nthe Board  are expected to inspect the barracks, cell wards,
\nwork sheds  and other buildings; ascertain or make enquiries
\nabout the  health, cleanliness,\t security of  prisoners\t and
\nexamine registers  of convicted\t and under  trial prisoners,
\npunishment  books,  other  records  relating  to  prisoners,
\nattend\tto   representations,  objections   etc.   made\t  by
\nprisoners, make
\n213<\/span>
\nentries in  the visitors’  book abou  their visits.  It\t was
\nfinally indicated  in  A  the  counter\taffidavit  that\t the
\npetitioner was\tan  amateur  journalist\t and  had  published
\n‘certain articles  in the  newspapers and  magazines without
\nrealising the  impact thereof;\tmany of such allegations and
\nthe so-called  hearsay stories\tsaid to\t have been collected
\nfrom  the  under  trials  were\tone-sided  and\tnothing\t but
\nexaggeration of\t facts. Such  articles written\tby her\twere
\ndefamatory, irresponsible  and no  mature  journalist  would
\nhave published such reckless articles.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t have  heard  Mr.  Salman  Khurshid  Ahmed  for\t the
\npetitioner and\tMr. Bhasme  for the State of Maharashtra and
\nhave considered\t the written  submissions filed on behalf of
\nboth in furtherance of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  the petitioner  and her  counsel Articles
\n19(1)(a) and 21 guarantee to every citizen reasonable access
\nto information about the institutions that formulate, enact,
\nimplement and  enforce the  laws of  the land. Every citizen
\nhas a  right to\t receive  such\tinformation  through  public
\ninstitutions  including\t  the  media  as  it  is  physically
\nimpossible for every citizen to be informed about all issues
\nof public  importance  individually  and  personally.  As  a
\njournalist, the\t petitioner  has  a  right  to\tcollect\t and
\ndisseminate information to citizens. The press has a special
\nresponsibility in  educating  citizens\tat  large  on  every
\npublic\tissue.\tThe  conditions\t prevailing  in\t the  Indian
\nprisons\t where\t both  under  trial  persons  and  convicted
\nprisoners are  housed is  directly connected with Article 21
\nof the\tConstitution. It  is the  obligation of\t Society  to
\nensure that  appropriate standards  are\t maintained  in\t the
\njails  and   humane  conditions\t  prevail  therein.   In   a
\nparticipatory democracy as ours unless access is provided to
\nthe citizens  and the  media in\t particular it\twould not be
\nfeasible to improve the conditions of the jails and maintain
\nthe quality  of the  environment in  which a  section of the
\npopulation is housed segregated from the rest of community.\n<\/p>\n
     On behalf\tof the\tState it  has  been  contended\tthat
\nneither of  the Articles  is attracted\tto a  matter of this
\ntype. The  rules made  by the  Government  are\tintended  to
\nsafeguard  the\t interests  of\t the  prisoners.  The  Board
\ncontemplated under  the Rules  consists\t of  several  public
\nofficers both  executive and judicial. Apart from that there
\nis a  body of non-official visitors as provided in Rule 5 of
\nthe Maharashtra Rules. Detailed provisions have been made in
\nthe Rules as to the duties of the visitors and the manner in
\nwhich the  visitors have  to perform  the same.\t It has been
\nfurther contended that the idea of segregating the prisoners
\nfrom the  community is\tto keep\t the prisoners\tunder strict
\ncontrol and H
\n214<\/span>
\ncut off\t from the  community. If  unguided and\tuncontrolled
\nright of visit is provided to citizens it would be difficult
\nto maintain  discipline and  the very purpose of keeping the
\ndelinquents in prison would be frustrated.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  Prabha Dutt  v. Union of India & ors.<\/a>,
\n119821 1  SCR 1184 this Court was considering the claim of a
\njounalist to  interview\t two  condemned\t prisoners  awarding
\nexecution. The learned Chief Justice said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Before considering the merits of the application,
\n\t  we would  like to  observe that the constitutional
\n\t  right\t to   freedom  of   speech  and\t  expression
\n\t  conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
\n\t  which includes the freedom of the press, is not an
\n\t  absolute right,  nor indeed  does  it\t confer\t any
\n\t  right on  the press to have an unrestricted access
\n\t  to means  of information. The press is entitled to
\n\t  exercise its\tfreedom of  speech and expression by
\n\t  publishing a\tmatter which  does  not\t invade\t the
\n\t  rights  of  other  citizens  and  which  does\t not
\n\t  violate the  sovereignty and\tintegrity of  India,
\n\t  the security\tof the\tState, public order, decency
\n\t  and morality.\t But in\t the instant case, the right
\n\t  claimed by  the petitioner  is not  the  right  to
\n\t  express any  particular view\tor opinion  but\t the
\n\t  right to  means of  information through the medium
\n\t  of an\t interview of  the  two\t prisoners  who\t are
\n\t  sentenced to\tdeath. No  such right can be claimed
\n\t  by the  press unless\tin the\tfirst instance,\t the
\n\t  person sought\t to be\tinterviewed is willing to be
\n\t  interviewed. The  existence of  a free  press does
\n\t  not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the
\n\t  citizens to  supply there is under section 161 (2)
\n\t  of the  Criminal Procedure  Code. No data has been
\n\t  made available  to us\t on the\t basis of  which  it
\n\t  would be  possible for  us to\t say  that  the\t two
\n\t  prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed
\nDealing\t with  the  matter  further  learned  Chief  Justice
\nstated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Rule\t  549\t (4)   of   the\t  Manual   for\t the
\nSuperintendence and Management of Jails, which is applicable
\nto Delhi,  provides that  every prisoner under a sentence of
\ndeath  shall   be  allowed   such   interviews\t and   other
\ncommunications\twith   his  relatives,\t friends  and  legal
\nadvisers   as\t the   Superintendent\tthinks\t reasonable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Journalists or newspapermen are not
\n215<\/span>
\n\t  expressly referred  to in clause (4) but that does
\n\t  not mean  that they  can always  and without\tgood
\n\t  reasons be  denied the  opportunity to interview a
\n\t  condemned prisoner.  If in  any given\t case, there
\n\t  are weighty  reasons for doing so, which we expect
\n\t  will always  be recorded in writing, the interview
\n\t  may  appropriately   be  refused.   But  no\tsuch
\n\t  consideration\t has   been  pressed   upon  us\t and
\n\t  therefore  we\t  do  not   see\t  any\treason\t why
\n\t  newspapermen\twho  can  broadly,  and\t we  suppose
\n\t  without great\t fear of contradiction, be termed as
\n\t  friends of  the society  be denied the right of an
\n\t  interview under clause (4) of the Rule 549.”
\n     That Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to
\nall citizens  to freedom of speech and expression is not the
\npoint in  issue; but  the  enlarged  me.  ng  given  to\t the
\nprovisions of  Article 21  by this  Court would, however, is
\nrelevant. The  meaning given  to the  term ‘life’ will cover
\nthe living condition prevailing in jails.\n<\/p>\n
     In Sunil  Batra v.\t Delhi Administration,<\/a>\t[1979] 1 SCR
\n392 a  Constitution Bench  of this  Court was  examining the
\neffect of  Article 21 in regard to a condemned prisoner. The
\nCourt observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Judges, even\t within a  prison setting,  are\t the
\n\t  real, though\trestricted, ombudsmen  empowered  to
\n\t  prescribe and prescribe, humanize and citizens and
\n\t  life-style within  the carcers.  The operation  of
\n\t  Articles 14,\t19 and\t21 may\tbe pared  down for a
\n\t  prisoner  but\t  not  puffed  out  altogether.\t For
\n\t  example, public  addresses by prisoners may be put
\n\t  down but  talking to fellow prisoners cannot. Vows
\n\t  of silence  or taboos on writing poetry or drawing
\n\t  cartoons are\tviolative of  Article 19.  So  also,
\n\t  locomation  may   be\tlimited\t  by  the  needs  of
\n\t  imprisonment but binding hand and foot, with hoops
\n\t  of steel,  every man or woman sentenced for a term
\n\t  is doing violence to Part III .. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Constitution  Bench quoted  with approval from Munn
\nv. Ilino’s, [1877] 94, U.S. 113, to emphasise the quality of
\nlife covered  by Article  21. The  same\t Constitution  Bench
\njudgment further states: –\n<\/p>\n
\t  “….. so,  when human  rights are  hashed  behind
\n\t  bars, constitutional\tjustice impeaches  such law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In this  sense, courts  which sign  citizens\tinto
\n\t  prisons have\tan  onerous  duty  to  ensure  that,
\n\t  during detention and subject to the
\n216<\/span>
\n\t  Constitution, freedom\t from torture belongs to the
\ndetenu.”\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Francis   Coralie  Mulin  v.  Administrator,  Union
\n     Territory of  Delhi & ors.<\/a>, [1981] 1 Scc 608 this Court
\n     pointed out that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  ” …\t A prisoner or detenu is not stripped of his
\n\t  fundamental or  other\t legal\trights,\t save  those
\n\t  which are  inconsistent with his incarceration and
\n\t  if the  constitutional validity of any such law is
\n\t  challenged, the court would have to decide whether
\n\t  the procedure\t laid down by such law for depriving
\n\t  a person  of his  personal liberty  is reasonable,
\n\t  fair and just .. ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was\talso pointed  out in  this case that ‘life’ included
\nthe right  to live  with human\tdignity In  A.K. Roy etc. v.
\nUnion of India & Anr., [ 1982]2 SCR the word was found:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “………. to include the necessity of right such
\n\t  as nutrition,\t clothing  shelter  over  the  head,
\n\t  facilities for  reading, writing,  interviews with
\n\t  members of  the family  and friends,\tsubject,  of
\n\t  course, to  present regulation, if any . . . . . .
\n\t  . . . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the observations
\nof this\t Court in  the case of S.P. Gupta & OrS. v. Union of
\nIndia &\t orS., [1982]  2 SCR  365 at  page 598, where it was
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Now it  is obvious  from the Constitution that we
\n\t  have adopted\ta  democratic  form  of\t Government.
\n\t  Where a  society has chosen to accept democracy as
\n\t  its creda faith it is elementary that the citizens
\n\t  ought to  know what  their government is doing The
\n\t  citizens have\t a right  to decide  by whom  and by
\n\t  what rules  they shall  be governed  and they\t are
\n\t  entitled to  call on\tthose who  govern  on  their
\n\t  behalf to  account for their conduct No democratic
\n\t  government can  survive without accountability and
\n\t  the basic  postulate of accountability is that the
\n\t  people   should   have   information\t about\t the
\n\t  functioning of  the  government.  It\tis  only  if
\n\t  people know  how government  is  functioning\tthat
\n\t  they can  fulfil the\trole which democracy assigns
\n\t  to them  and make  democracy\ta  really  effective
\n\t  participatory\t democracy.  “Knowledge\t said  James
\n\t  Madison, ‘will  for ever  govern ignorance  and  a
\n\t  people who mean to be their own gover-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
217<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  nors must  arm themselves with the power knowledge
\n\t  gives.A   popular   government   without   popular
\n\t  information on the means of obtaining it, is but a
\n\t  prologue to  a force\tor tragedy or perhaps both’.
\n\t  The citizens’\t right to  know the  facts, the true
\n\t  facts, about\tthe administration of the country is
\n\t  thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And
\n\t  that\tis  why\t the  demand  for  openness  in\t the
\n\t  government is\t increasingly growing  in  different
\n\t  parts of the world.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       “The demand for openness in the government is
\n\t  based principally on two reasons. It is now widely
\n\t  accepted that democracy does not consist merely in
\n\t  people exercising  their franchise  once  in\tfive
\n\t  years to choose their rulers, and once the vote is
\n\t  cast, then  retiring in  passivity and  not taking
\n\t  any interest in the government. Today it is common
\n\t  ground that  democracy has a more positive content
\n\t  and its  orchestration has  to be  continuous\t and
\n\t  pervasive.  This  means  inter  alia\tthat  people
\n\t  should not  only  cast  intelligent  and  rational
\n\t  votes but  should also  exercise sound judgment on
\n\t  the conduct  of the  government and  the merits of
\n\t  public policies, so that democracy does not remain
\n\t  merely a sporadic exercise in coting but becomes a
\n\t  continuous process  of government-an\tattitude and
\n\t  habit of  mind. But this important role people can
\n\t  fulfil in  a democracy  only\tif  it\tis  an\topen
\n\t  government  where   there  is\t a  full  access  to
\n\t  information in  regard to  the functioning  of the
\n\t  government “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We endorse these observations as a correct statement of
\nthe position.  We also\treiterate  the\tviews  expressed  in
\nseveral decisions  of this  Court that\t“life” in Article 21
\nhas the\t extended  meaning  given  to  the  word  and  those
\ncitizens who  are detained in prisons either as under-trials
\nor as  convicts are  also entitled  to the  benefit  of\t the
\nguarantees subject to reasonable restrictions.\n<\/p>\n
     Judicial notice should be taken of the position that on
\naccount\t of   intervention  of\t courts\t there\thas  been  a
\nsubstantial improvement\t in  the  conditions  prevailing  in
\njails. The provisions of jail manuals have undergone change;
\nthe authorities\t connected with the jail administration have
\nchanged their  approach\t to  administration  and  method  of
\ncontrol there  has been\t a new awakening both in citizens in
\ngeneral\t and  the  people  detained  in\t jail.\tIndisputably
\nintervention of\t the courts  has been possible on account of
\npetitions and protests lodged from jails;\n<\/p>\n
218<\/span><\/p>\n
news items  published in  the Press.  We may not be taken to
\nmean that the rules prescribed for administration of prisons
\nare of\tno value at all. Yet, until the appropriate attitude
\ngrows in  the administrative establishment the provisions in
\nthe several  manuals applicable\t to the jails in the country
\nwould not  provide adequate  safeguard for implementation of
\nthe  standards\tindicated  in  judicial\t decisions.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, necessary  that public gaze should be directed to
\nthe matter  and the  pressmen as  friends of the society and
\npublic spirited\t citizens should  have access  not  only  to
\ninformation but\t also interviews. Prison administrators have
\nthe human  tendency of\tattempting to  cover up their lapses
\nand so\tshun disclosure\t thereof. As  an instance,  we would
\nlike to\t refer to incidents in the Tihar Jail located at the
\ncountry’s capital  under the  very nose\t of the\t responsible
\nadministrators.\n<\/p>\n
     In such  a situation  we are  of the  view that  public
\naccess should be permitted. We have already pointed out that
\nthe citizen  does not  have any\t right either  under Article
\n19(1)(a) or  21 to  enter into\tthe jails  for collection of
\ninformation  but   in  order   that  the  guarantee  of\t the
\nfundamental right  under Article  21 may be available to the
\ncitizens detained  in the  jails, it  becomes  necessary  to
\npermit citizen’s  access to  information as  also interviews
\nwith prisoners. Interviews become necessary as otherwise the
\ncorrect information may not be collected but such access has
\ngot to be controlled and regulated.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are,\ttherefore,  not\t  prepared  to\t accept\t the
\npetitioner’s claim  that she  was entitled  to\tuncontrolled
\ninterview. We  agree with  the submission  of Mr. Bhasme for
\nthe respondent\tthat as\t and  when  factual  information  is
\ncollected as  a result\tof interview the same should usually
\nbe cross-checked  with\tthe  authorities  so  that  a  wrong
\npicture\t of   the  situation  may  not\tbe  publised.  While
\ndisclosure  of\tcorrect\t information  is  necessary,  it  is
\nequally important  that there  should be no dissemination of
\nwrong  information.   We  assume   that\t those\twho  receive
\npermission  to\thave  interviews  will\tagree  to  abide  by
\nreasonable  restrictions.   Most  of   the  manuals  provide
\nrestrictions   which\tare   reasonable.    As\t  and\twhen
\nreasonableness of  restrictions is  disputed it\t would be  a
\nmatter for  examination and  we hope  and  trust  that\tsuch
\noccasions would\t be indeed  rare. We see reason in the stand
\nadopted by  Mr. Bhasme\trelating to  the objections  of\t his
\nclient about  tape-recording by\t interviewers. There  may be
\ncases where  such tape-recording  is necessary\tbut we would
\nlike to\t make it clear that tape-recording should be subject
\nto special  permission of  the appropriate  authority. There
\nmay be\tsome individuals  or class of persons in prison with
\nwhom  interviews  may  not  be\tpermitted  for\tthe  reasons
\nindicated by this Court in the case of
\n219<\/span>
\nPrabha Dutt (supra). We may reiterate that interviews cannot
\nbe  A\tforced\tand  willingness  of  the  prisoners  to  be
\ninterviewed would  always be  insisted upon.  There  may  be
\ncertain other  cases where  for good  reason permission\t may
\nalso  be   withheld.  These  are  situations  which  can  be
\nconsidered as and when they arise.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioner  is free  to make  an application to the
\nprescribed authority for the requisite permission and as and
\nwhen  such  application\t is  made,  keeping  the  guidelines
\nindicated above,  such request may be dealt with. There will
\nbe no order for costs.\n<\/p>\n
S . L.\t\t\t\t       Petition disposed of.\n220<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 Equivalent citations: JT 1988 (3) 15 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: SHEELA BARSE Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/09\/1987 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J) CITATION: JT 1988 (3) 15 ACT: Permission to journalists […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\"},\"wordCount\":3013,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\",\"name\":\"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987","datePublished":"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987"},"wordCount":3013,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987","name":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T22:50:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheela-barse-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-september-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheela Barse vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}