SC: Public outrage in high-profile cases understandable but never dictate inquiry

New Delhi: Observing that justice is not served by following majority sentiment or under public pressure, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said while an outrage is understandable in high-profile cases, it should never dictate the inquiry.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan said allowing public sentiment to shape the outcome of an inquiry risks miscarriages of justice.

“The court emphasises that justice is not served by following majority sentiment or public pressure. Justice is served by truth, established through evidence and impartial investigation. While public outrage is understandable in high-profile cases, it should never dictate the course of inquiry. Investigations require careful collection of evidence, impartial analysis and conclusions grounded in fact.

“A society committed to fairness must recognise that investigators and courts serve the truth, not popularity. Their independence is not a luxury but the foundation of justice itself,” the bench said.

The observations came while upholding the two-year jail term of a man challenging his conviction for abetting the suicide of Telugu actress Pratyusha in 2002.

The court also slammed Muni Swamy, who conducted the post-mortem of the actress, and pointed out that even though there was a doctor on duty on February 25, 2002, he came to the mortuary on his own and performed the autopsy.

The bench said it was surprising as Swamy was neither on duty at the mortuary nor on call duty as a professor.

“The premature and erroneous opinion of Muni Swamy unleashed a wave of public controversy. Media reports amplified his conclusions, leading to a widespread suspicion of the investigators and calls for immediate action against the alleged perpetrators.

“This demonstrates how a single erroneous report, when publicised prematurely, can distort public perception and derail the course of justice,” the bench observed.

It said the impact of a doctor issuing an erroneous post-mortem report and publicising it through the media goes far beyond individual misconduct.

“It spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative agencies and institutions, such as police and the judiciary, prejudices public opinion, traumatises the victim’s family and undermines the rule of law.

“Such misconduct does not merely harm one case, it corrodes public trust in medicine, law and governance, destabilising peace and harmony in the society. It also violates the sub-judice rule, which restricts commentary on matters under judicial consideration to preserve fairness and integrity,” the apex court said.

It held that Swamy’s conduct in furnishing an erroneous report, publicising it prematurely and thereby violating professional ethics and the sub-judice rule constitutes contempt of court.