Defamed Before Due Process? Questions Raised Over Media Coverage of Hari Shankar Tibrewala Before Judicial Cognizance

New Delhi, 18th July 2026: Questions are being raised over the extent of media coverage surrounding businessman Hari Shankar Tibrewala, with legal observers highlighting the distinction between investigative allegations and judicial proceedings under Indian law.

The debate centres on whether an individual can be publicly portrayed as guilty before a competent court has even taken cognizance of the alleged offences. Under India’s criminal justice system, investigation, filing of a complaint or prosecution report, and judicial cognizance are separate legal stages.

Judicial cognizance is the stage at which a court first applies its mind to the allegations to determine whether legal proceedings should commence. Until cognizance is taken, the allegations have not been judicially examined or tested before a court.

According to the claims made in the statement, no competent court has yet taken cognizance of the alleged offences against Hari Shankar Tibrewala. If this position is reflected in court records, it would mean that no judicial determination has been made that the matter should proceed to trial, and there has been no finding of guilt.

Despite this, the statement alleges that sections of the media have repeatedly reported the allegations in a manner that could create a public perception that guilt has already been established. It argues that such reporting may cause significant reputational and commercial damage before the judicial process has had an opportunity to examine the case.

The statement further stresses that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence and the rule of law. It says every individual is entitled to have allegations tested through due process in a court of law rather than being judged through public discourse or media narratives.

It also argues that the issue extends beyond a single individual, contending that if people are effectively convicted in the court of public opinion before judicial cognizance, the safeguards built into the criminal justice system are undermined.

The statement concludes that criminal liability should ultimately be determined by courts on the basis of admissible evidence and judicial scrutiny, not by media reports, anonymous sources, or unverified allegations. It reiterates that until a competent court examines the matter in accordance with law, the constitutional presumption of innocence remains paramount.