Assam CM's 'Murder' Claim: Why Zubeen Garg's Death Case Demands a Fair Trial

Written by: Kishor Kumar Kalita, Rahul Sensua

“Fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence; denial of fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the victim and the society.”

— Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

On November 3, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that the renowned musician and cultural icon Zubeen Garg had been “murdered.” He further contended, “I am not calling it an accident. The charge-sheet in this murder case must be submitted by December 17, but I have set a target to file it by December 8th. We are ready now.”

It is pertinent to note that these statements were made during the pendency of an investigation by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted under the Assam Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID), following the registration of more than 30 First Information Reports (FIRs) throughout the state concerning Zubeen Garg's death. However, in making such definitive statements, the Chief Minister did not reveal what led the investigation to classify Zubeen Garg's death as murder. Mr. Sarma also stated that he had met the Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, requesting him to expedite the consent for submitting a charge-sheet, as authorization is required from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in cases where the incident's place of occurrence is outside the territory of India.

Permissibility of Premature Disclosure

The pertinent question at hand is whether a state’s Chief Minister, who also serves as the head of the State's Home Department, can publicly disclose the outcome of a criminal investigation prior to the submission of the charge-sheet before the court by the Investigating Agency. Is it permissible under the Law of the Land, ethical norms, and judicial principles for the executive head of a state to publicly make a presumptive statement about an ongoing investigation?

The short answer to these questions is definitively "No." A Chief Minister (or anyone heading the Home Department) does not have a free hand to publicly reveal the findings of a criminal investigation before a formal charge-sheet is filed and the trial begins. There are significant restrictions under Indian law intended to protect the rights of the accused, the integrity of the investigation, and the process of trial.

Legal and Judicial Restraints

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (which replaced much of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the investigative agency must conduct its probe in a manner that respects the rights of the accused. Both the stage when a charge-sheet (or final report) is filed and the stage of trial are critical.

In the case of Saurav Das v. Union of India (2023), the Honourable Supreme Court held that charge-sheets are not public documents under Sections 74, 75, or 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Placing them in the public domain would violate the rights of the accused, victims, and the agency. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by RTI activist and investigative journalist Saurav Das, stated:

"Copy of the charge-sheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act. As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act, all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the charge-sheet and the documents cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act; reliance placed upon Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced."

It is further worth mentioning that the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against ‘media-trials’ driven by premature disclosures or public briefings by police or investigating agencies that may prejudice the trial.

In 2023, the Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare comprehensive guidelines for media briefings by police and further directed the Directors General of Police to provide their suggestions in consultation with stakeholders, including media organizations and the National Human Rights Commission. The Court held:

"It is equally important to emphasise that the nature of the disclosure which is made by the police in the course of media briefings should be objective in nature and should not consist of a subjective opinion pre-judging the guilt of the accused... The guidelines must duly factor in the need to ensure that the disclosure does not result in a media trial so as to allow for the pre-judging of the guilt of the accused. Media trials have the potential to result in a derailment of justice by impacting upon the evidence which would be adduced and its assessment by the adjudicating authorities."

The Court also observed that:

“While a disclosure by the media of relevant details involves public interest associated with the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, equally, the rights of the accused and of the victims or, as the case may be, survivors of crimes have a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which is protected by Article 21.”

The Imperative for Impartiality

Therefore, even though the head of the Home Department or the Chief Minister may publicly discuss crime and law and order generally, they must refrain from disclosing specific investigative findings in a way that compromises the confidentiality of the investigation or the accused's right to a fair trial, particularly before the charge-sheet is submitted.

Such public statements can potentially sway possible witnesses, influence police actions, or undermine the accused's right to a fair inquiry or trial, which could severely harm the investigation. Furthermore, premature revelation, by effectively announcing guilt (or inferred guilt) in the public realm, directly undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The state will eventually fail to prove the case by strictly adhering to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence if it discloses untested evidence, names of the accused or witnesses too soon, or otherwise compromises the integrity of the investigation or trial. An impartial and capable investigation is necessary if we truly want a fair trial in the Zubeen Garg death case. This inquiry must not be influenced in any way by the statements of the executive head or the media.