The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a direction to the Centre to frame and implement detailed guidelines to regulate media reporting on aviation incidents until official investigations are concluded.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice M.M. Shrivatsava and Justice Sunder Mohan rejected the plea filed by advocate M. Pravin, who had urged the court to mandate institutional safeguards against speculative and premature media coverage that, he claimed, unfairly targets flight crew involved in aviation accidents.
In his petition, Pravin highlighted the trend of media, including social and digital platforms, publishing unverified and often sensational content in the immediate aftermath of aviation mishaps. He argued that such coverage tends to prejudge and blame pilots before any official findings are released, causing significant damage to their careers, reputations, and mental health.
He specifically referred to the incident on June 12, 2025, where, according to him, several media reports prematurely attributed fault to the flight crew while the investigation was still pending. In response, Pravin submitted a representation on July 14 to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, requesting urgent intervention.
His recommendations included issuing advisories to media houses, enforcing confidentiality protocols related to pilots and preliminary findings, and formulating content moderation norms for digital platforms under the IT Rules.
The petition contended that the absence of effective action violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy and dignity of pilots. It also warned that continued inaction could undermine aviation safety and the integrity of responsible journalism in the digital era.
However, the High Court, after hearing the arguments, declined to intervene, noting that framing such media norms falls within the policy domain of the executive and does not warrant judicial directions in the absence of statutory violations.
