Synopsis: Asif Iqbal Tanha has filed a petition alleging that before the filing of a chargesheet, police officials leaked his supposed disclosure statement in the case diary to the media.
Today, the Delhi High Court ordered the police status report on its vigilance inquiry into the suspected confession statement of a Delhi riot accused of being leaked from the case diary to the media.
The Court also ordered the Delhi Police to state the proposed further steps to be taken in this respect.
The Delhi Police were ordered by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru to ensure that it was not something brushed under the carpet. It’s hard to assume that the paper was not leaked.
The Court heard a petition filed by the accused, Asif Iqbal Tanha, alleging that his supposed disclosure statement, which was recorded during the investigation, was leaked to the media by police officers before the filing of a chargesheet.
Tanha maintained that he was forced to sign police custody papers and that there was no evidentiary value in the statement.
The Delhi Police had told the Court in response to the petition that a vigilance enquiry had been initiated into the incident.
Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate for Tanha, today urged the Court to take notice of the inquiry ordered over a month ago.
Advocate Amit Mahajan, counsel for Delhi Police, replied that the investigation was over and a final report was awaited.
In addition, alleging that ‘theft of document’ had certainly occurred, with or without the connivance of a police officer, Aggarwal also argued that in the present case, criminal investigations should be initiated.
Aggarwal also claimed, raising questions about the media investigation and media trial, that the broadcast of Zee News on the leaked document was in violation of the Programme Code.
Zee News aired a broadcast alleging that Tanha admitted that the Delhi riots were being organised.
The Court noted during the hearing that while Tanha had sought guidance to take down the broadcast videos, in view of the existence of many mirror videos, it was a relief that doesn’t work.
The Court asked Aggarwal to propose other ways of resolving grievances of this nature, claiming that the issue was that the trial and the rights of the accused must not be hampered.
In compliance with the Court, Aggarwal argued that it was difficult, once a broadcast had been made, to reverse the harm caused by it. He indicated that retribution and punishment were the only forms of deterrence.
Aggarwal therefore urged that the High Court should pass specific guidelines on the issue.
Aggarwal further argued that such a leak and broadcast could not have been done even in the post-chargesheet stage.
The matter will be heard next on the 13th January.