Are Press Inerviews Admissible in evidence..

Sir, I am your sister trying to answer your query. :)

I think public statements such as statements given in an interview to press or media are admissible in court of law as they are regarded as voluntary disclosures and not made under pressure, as the version given to the police might be construed as.

thank you for your reply, Suchitra ji, my doubt was that generally news reports of the print media are considered as hearsay..

but what about those statements that are printed within quotes...

Suchitra , don’t think(I think public statements such as statements given in an interview to press or media are admissible in court of law ) its fact,true. Read this….

Supreme Court has added a new, and significant, chapter to the conservative criminal jurisprudence and given a role to the media in criminal trials by ruling that interviews given by an accused to TV channels could be considered evidence by courts, where by enhancing the power of the already powerful media.

No doubt such a decision is a fabulous step in the direction of curtailing the misuse of the freedom of speech, which in the recent years has been used to mislead the investigation process. Still there are serious issues that need to be deliberated as to how such a scenario will fit into the existing evidence mechanism.

There is no question as to the admissibility of the Television interview as evidence in the Indian judicial process, still if we say that there are questions involved then they pertain as to

 What kind of evidence a television interview will prove to be?

Whether it will be taken as oral evidence or documentary evidence?

If documentary then whether a television interview is a primary evidence or secondary Evidence?

What will be the issues involved when one confesses of having committed a crime in an interview on television, will it be admissible as a confession?

 Whether the confession would amount to extra-judicial confession?

The HC said the apex court, in the Parliament attack case, had rejected the admissibility of Afzal's statement to the TV channel as it became apparent that the interview was arranged by the police and recorded in their presence.

The HC, agreeing with the trial court, held that the SC has not laid down any principle about admissibility of confessional statement by an accused to media, if it were given suo-motu and without any pressure from the police. Mirza carried his appeal to the Supreme Court.

And this case Sajidbeg Asifbeg Mirza vs State Of Gujarat on 17 November, 2006 (https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/70789/)

 We may also refer to the contention advanced by Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for S.A.R. Gilani with reference to the confession of Afzal. Shri Jethmalani contended that Afzal in the course of his interview with the TV and other media representatives, a day prior to the recording of a confession before the DCP, while confessing to the crime, absolved Gilani of his complicity in the conspiracy. A cassette (Ext.DW-4/A) was produced as the evidence of his talk. DW-4, a reporter of Aaj Tak TV channel was examined. It shows that Afzal was pressurrised to implicate Gilani in the confessional statement, according to the learned Counsel. It is further contended by Shri Jethmalani that the statement of Afzal in the course of media interview is relevant and admissible under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for Afzal, Shri Sushil Kumar did not sail with Shri Jethmalani on this point, realising the implications of admission of the statements of Afzal before the TV and press on his culpability. However, at one stage he did argue that the implication of Gilani in the confessional statement conflicts with the statement made by him to the media and therefore the confession is not true. We are of the view that the talk which Afzal had with the TV and press reporters admittedly in the immediate presence of the police and while he was in police custody, should not be relied upon irrespective of the fact whether the statement was made to a police officer within the meaning of Section 162 CrPC or not. We are not prepared to attach any weight or credibility to the statements made in the course of such interview prearranged by the police. The police officials in their over-zealousness arranged for a media interview which has evoked serious comments from the counsel about the manner in which publicity was sought to be given thereby. Incidentally, we may mention that PW 60 the DCP, who was supervising the investigation, surprisingly expressed his ignorance about the media interview. We thing that the wrong step taken by the police should not ensure to the benefit or detriment of either the prosecution or the accused.

The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 8 of his order has observed that:

Looking to the above mentioned ruling, it appears that, no principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, but, it appears that, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, if a statement is made in the course of an interview prearranged by the police, no weightage can be given to it at the time of appreciation of evidence. It appears that, there is no question of appreciation of evidence, but the only question to be decided is whether the grievance which is sought to be adduced by the prosecution is relevant or not ? and whether the prosecution can be permitted to adduce such evidence or not ?

thanks  kushan ji... god bless.