Maxim

“nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” (no one can take advantage of his own wrong

Prabha Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors

The constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of Press, is not an absolute right; nor indeed does it confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the State, public order, decency and morality.  The right claimed by the petitioner in the present case, a newspaper reporter, to interview two convicts under sentence of death is not a right to express any particular view, or opinion but the right to means of information through the medium of an interview with them. No such right can be claimed by the Press unless the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such as there is under section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Rule 549(4) of the Jail Manual provides that a prisoner under a sentence of death shall be allowed interviews and other communications with relatives, friends and legal advisers, journalists and newspapermen, though not expressly referred to in this rule cannot be denied the opportunity of interview without good reasons. There is no reason why newspapermen who could be termed as friends of the society be denied the right of interview under rule 549(4). 

There can be no doubt that a person, who desires to interview a prisoner may have to subject himself or herself to the search in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the interviews. 

Prabha Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors 

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/671310/