As of July 18, 2026, Hari Shankar Tibrewala has been the subject of prolonged investigative reporting that, in places, presents allegations in a way that risks conveying guilt before any court has formally examined the matter. That treatment raises a stark legal and ethical question: how can someone be portrayed as guilty in public when the judicial process may not have even reached the stage of taking cognizance of the alleged offences?
Under Indian criminal procedure, investigation, the filing of a complaint or prosecution report, and judicial cognizance are separate stages. Judicial cognizance is the moment a court first applies its mind to allegations and decides whether formal proceedings should begin. Until a competent court takes cognizance, allegations remain untested in a court of law.
If, as a matter of court record, no competent court has yet taken cognizance of the allegations against Mr. Tibrewala, that fact underscores an important legal reality: there has been no judicial finding that the matter should proceed to trial, and certainly no determination of guilt. Yet repeated media coverage that frames allegations as settled can inflict immediate reputational and commercial harm long before the courts have had a chance to adjudicate.
The presumption of innocence is not a technicality; it is a foundational principle of the rule of law and a safeguard against trial by media. Every accused person is entitled to have evidence tested in court through due process, not condemned in headlines or through unverified anonymous sources. Reporting that suggests guilt absent judicial scrutiny weakens those safeguards for everyone.
The appropriate forum to determine criminal liability is a courtroom, based on admissible evidence and judicial scrutiny, not public speculation. Until a competent court examines the matter in accordance with law, the constitutional presumption of innocence must remain paramount.
Editorial disclaimer: This article offers legal analysis and public commentary based on publicly available information. It does not establish or imply any person’s guilt. Any legal proceedings remain subject to adjudication by competent courts, and every individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in accordance with law.
Original Source: https://www.sikkimexpress.com/news-details/defamed-before-due-process-hari-shankar-tibrewala-faces-public-conviction-without-judicial-scrutiny
Category:
Tags:
Publish Date:
