Delhi court restrains channel from using material related to Shraddha murder case for three days
Apr 17, 2023
New Delhi [India], April 17 : Delhi's Saket court on Monday restrained a news channel from utilising in any form any material related to the Shraddha murder case for the next three days.
The court has listed the case for further consideration on April 20.
Meanwhile, the court has suggested Delhi Police to approach a higher court to avail the remedy for seeking to restrain all channels to use the material which is part of the charge sheet of the case.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Manisha Khurana Kakkar was hearing an application moved on behalf of Delhi Police seeking a direction to restrain a news channel and other media houses from telecasting the materials contained in the charge sheet of the case.
"...Instructions to state on behalf of news channel.... that the said channel shall not telecast/publish/disseminate the contents of the psychological assessment and voice layer test, narco analysis test and conversation recorded on Dr Practo App for the next three days, till April 20, " it said.
Meanwhile, Delhi Police is at liberty to approach the constitutional or higher court for exercising their remedy, the court said.
The Saket court on April 10 had restrained a media house from publishing/printing and disseminating the content of charge sheet including digital evidence in the Shraddha murder case. The court had also issued notice to the channel.
Delhi Police had approached the court on credible information that one of the media houses has accessed the audio-video evidence related to the Narco and Practo app and is likely to disseminate the same in a special program.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad submitted before the court that it had ample power to pass an order restraining the media house from publishing/printing or disseminating the content of the charge sheet as it's not a public document.
On the other hand, the counsel for the news channels opposed the plea and argued that the court doesn't have the jurisdiction to pass a restraining order.
Thereafter the court said that it will pass a detailed order.
