The Supreme Court has asked every state to draw up a clear policy governing how police communicate with the media, using a detailed guidance document placed before it as the reference point. States have been given a three-month window to complete the exercise.
A bench led by Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh said it was time to bring structure and consistency to police briefings, directing states to shape their policies around the suggested framework and implement them within the stipulated period.
The court noted that earlier opportunities given to states to act on their own had not produced meaningful results. With that, it chose to close the proceedings by issuing a firm directive instead of letting the issue drift further.
What the guidance lays down
The proposed framework — now available on the Supreme Court’s website — is organised into four parts, covering everything from foundational principles to day-to-day operations, training and compliance. Its core objective is to strike a careful balance: keeping the public informed without compromising investigations or the rights of victims, suspects and witnesses.
The scope is deliberately broad. It applies not just to press conferences, but to all forms of public communication — official statements, interviews, district media cells, on-scene briefings, social media posts, alerts, posters and audio-visual material.
An implementation roadmap is built in. A 90-day adoption plan is divided into three stages: setting up institutional structures, building capacity, and then validating and auditing the system. The process begins with the creation of dedicated media briefing cells.
Guardrails against “trial by media”
A recurring theme is restraint. The guidance stresses that police disclosures must not fuel parallel verdicts in public discourse. It sets out stage-wise protocols on what may be said before an FIR, during investigation, and after arrest or remand.
Every disclosure is expected to pass four tests:
-
Legality — there must be a lawful basis to share the information.
-
Necessity — the public objective cannot be met without disclosure.
-
Proportionality — only what is strictly required should be shared.
-
Accountability — information must be verified, approved and released through authorised channels.
Language is to remain neutral, focused on procedural milestones rather than conclusions. Witness accounts, operational details and speculative commentary are to stay out of briefings, while misinformation should be corrected promptly.
Privacy, neutrality and discipline
The framework places strong emphasis on protecting identities, especially of survivors and vulnerable persons, unless lawful consent and clear public interest justify disclosure. References to caste, religion, gender, disability or migration status are barred unless they are essential for immediate safety concerns.
Only designated spokespersons or authorised officers may address the media, and records of all briefings must be maintained. Disclosures are to be assessed for risks to fair trial rights, privacy, security, and the potential impact on juveniles or survivors. If the cumulative risk is too high, the guidance advises deferring the disclosure, anonymising details, or issuing a brief holding statement instead.
Unauthorised leaks or interviews are treated as misconduct, inviting disciplinary action and, where warranted, legal consequences.
Special situations and social media
For communal or caste-sensitive incidents, the guidance calls for calm, de-escalatory language and avoidance of group labels until facts are verified. In cases of custodial deaths or alleged excesses, authorities are advised to acknowledge the incident immediately and trigger all mandated inquiries without delay.
On suicides and self-harm, sensationalism is expressly discouraged — no methods, no images, and always with mental-health helpline information.
Social media, too, comes under tight control. Sensitive posts may have replies limited, identifiable faces avoided, and political commentary strictly prohibited. Corrections should be transparent rather than quietly deleting posts.
With this direction, the Supreme Court has effectively handed states a ready-made blueprint — and a deadline — to bring order, accountability and restraint to police communication in the public domain.
