In a case related to the jail interview of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi controversy, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday has raised tough questions about media access inside the jail premises. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by sacked Punjab Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu, who challenged the issuance of Section 41A of CrPC notice to him.
Read also: "Black Cat Commando Must Surrender: Supreme Court Denies Exemption in Dowry Death Case"
A bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh took note of the fact that Sandhu had already filed a similar plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which is scheduled for further hearing on July 3, 2025. Consequently, the SC dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
"They are the press… you were in charge last night. How did they get into the jail to conduct the interview? You just appear in the High Court," Justice KV Vishwanathan questioned during the hearing.
Background of the case
The case arises out of two television interviews of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, who is accused in the Sidhu Moosewala murder case. The interviews were telecast by ABP News channel in March 2023, even though Lawrence Bishnoi was in custody.
Read also: Supreme Court Summons UP Jailor for Ignoring Bail Order, Calls It 'Travesty of Justice'
Subsequently, in November 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognizance of the incident and raised grave concerns about the use of phones and outside access to the jail premises.
An SIT (Special Investigation Team) was formed and in August 2024, its investigation revealed that the first interview took place at the CIA facility in Kharar on the night of September 3-4, 2022, and the second interview was conducted at a prison in Rajasthan.
The High Court also observed that
"Punjab police officials have allowed Lawrence Bishnoi to use electronic devices and also provided a studio-like facility inside the jail for the interview."
Read also: PIL filed in Supreme Court Seeking Grounding of Air India's Boeing Fleet After Ahmedabad Plane Crash
As a result of the SIT report, seven officers, including Gursher Singh Sandhu, were suspended. In January 2025, Sandhu filed a petition in the High Court challenging his suspension, arguing that he was not named in the FIR and was being unfairly targeted while others involved were being let off.
Senior advocate Vikram Choudhary, appearing for Gursher Singh Sandhu, said the DSP was being targeted even though he had no direct involvement. He stressed that there was already a ban on coercive action against the journalist who took the interview, while Sandhu was facing continuous Section 41A notices.
“The problem is that they are saying that now Section 41A has been violated,” argued senior advocate Vikram Choudhary.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to intervene and left it to the High Court to examine the matter.
The court said in its order that “the questions are left open to be considered by the High Court.”
Gursher Singh Sandhu’s counsel requested the Supreme Court to allow the High Court to decide on both interim and final reliefs, to which the bench agreed before disposing of the case.
Case Title: GURSHER SINGH SANDHU Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 9140/2025
