In a detailed order released on Saturday, a division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh said, “Those who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest.”
On freedom of speech and expression, the division bench asserted, “It is true that freedom of speech and expression has been enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This freedom also includes a free and fair press which is an important pillar of a democracy governed by rule of law. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which include security of State, public order and would not permit incitement to an offence.”
Stating that the interviews glorify crime and criminals, the bench said, “The interviewee is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses.”
The bench also pointed out that these interviews are stated to have garnered over 12 million views, which could have an adverse impact on youngsters with impressionable minds.
“Punjab is a border state and any deterioration in law and order or increase in crime could affect the national security as at times, anti-national elements take advantage of the situation and often use criminals for their nefarious designs. They often get help from across the border. There is a thin line between extortion, target killings and anti–national activities. The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act,” the court said.
Strengthening of jail security
Meanwhile, the state counsel submitted that tentative timelines have been suggested for taking measures with regard to strengthening jail security, which includes installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh for raising the outer walls, X-ray body scanners etc and the proposals had been submitted to the government and some time may be granted to submit definite timelines.
The bench directed the competent authority to consider the matter a top priority as breaches in jail security have an impact on the law and order in the state, as it has been noticed that in several cases which have come up for hearing in the courts, mobile phones are being used by the inmates in furtherance of their criminal activities.