Press release violating Police Manual protocols led to mob violence and property destruction; Court directs appointment of Claims Commissioner and strict compliance with Supreme Court guidelines to prevent such incidents.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 27, 2026, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, addressed the grave consequences of a police press release issued during an ongoing murder investigation in Mizoram. The case arose after the police disclosed sensitive details in a press statement implicating the deceased husband of the petitioner, Smt. C Laltanpuii, as the prime suspect in a high-profile murder. This disclosure, the Court found, violated the Police Manual for Media Briefing and directly led to mob violence, resulting in the destruction of the petitioner's property and threats to her family's safety.
The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the eviction notice issued by local associations and the police press release which allegedly triggered the violent attacks. The Court noted that the eviction notices were withdrawn during the pendency of the petition and the frozen bank account of the petitioner's husband was reactivated, partially addressing the petitioner's grievances.
The factual matrix involved the mysterious disappearance and subsequent discovery of a young girl's body, followed by intense police investigations focusing on the petitioner's deceased husband. The police press statement, issued on January 27, 2026, revealed intimate and forensic details about the victim and the investigation, including the victim's pregnancy, suspected bloodstains, and call detail records linking the husband to the crime. The Court found that these disclosures were in breach of the established protocols under the Police Manual, which restrict the release of investigative details to prevent prejudicing the rights of suspects and victims.
Following the press release, a mob gathered at the petitioner's residence, engaging in stone-pelting, burning construction materials, and looting valuables. Despite police presence, no effective steps were taken to prevent the violence. The local NGOs issued eviction notices against the petitioner's family to quell public anger, although they admitted lacking legal authority to do so. The Court observed that the police's failure to control the mob and protect the petitioner's rights constituted serious negligence.
The State respondents contended that such press releases are routine in high-profile cases to inform the public and deny any intent to incite violence. They also claimed that arrests related to the mob violence could not be made due to volatile conditions, and that dissemination of information by third-party media was beyond police control.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court emphasized the constitutional right to privacy and the presumption of innocence, underscoring that police authorities must exercise restraint and comply with media briefing protocols. Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, the Court highlighted guidelines for preventing and remedying mob violence, stressing the State's duty to protect citizens and investigate criminal acts promptly.
The Court's directions included:
1. Declaring the impugned police press release as violative of media briefing protocols and ordering its recall within seven days.
2. Circulating the Police Manual for Media Briefing to all police authorities to prevent recurrence.
3. Ensuring diligent investigation of the mob violence FIR, with weekly monitoring by the Superintendent of Police and strict action against negligence.
4. Appointing Mr. Lalngaihmawia Zote, Additional District and Sessions Judge, as Claims Commissioner to assess and recommend compensation for damages suffered by the petitioner, to be concluded within three months.
5. Facilitating the Claims Commissioner with necessary logistical support and expediting the Court's consideration of compensation claims.
This judgment sends a strong message against reckless disclosure of investigative details and failure to protect citizens from mob violence. It reinforces the principle that law enforcement must balance transparency with rights protection and act decisively against mob rule, ensuring that public outrage does not supplant legal processes.
The case also reiterates the Supreme Court's stance that police officials must be proactive in preventing mob violence, and where lapses occur, departmental and criminal actions are warranted. The Court's insistence on appointing a Claims Commissioner aligns with existing apex court guidelines on compensating victims of mass violence.
This ruling is expected to have widespread implications on police media interactions and law enforcement's approach to mob violence across India, reinforcing constitutional safeguards and procedural discipline.
Bottom Line:
Police Manual for Media Briefing - Press release issued by police during an ongoing investigation violated the protocol laid down in the Police Manual for Media Briefing, leading to mob violence and destruction of private property - Directions issued for compliance with guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding mob violence and appointment of Claims Commissioner for compensation.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code Sections 326(g), 324(5), 191(2), 153A, 295A, 298, 425, Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Police Manual for Media Briefing (Chapter 8, Clauses 8.1 to 8.3).
Smt. C Laltanpuii v. State of Mizoram, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971296
