Defamed Before Due Process: Hari Shankar Tibrewala Faces Public Conviction Without Judicial Scrutiny

For years, Hari Shankar Tibrewala has been the subject of extensive media coverage based on investigative allegations. Yet a fundamental question deserves attention:

How can a person be publicly portrayed as guilty when the judicial process has not even reached the stage of taking cognizance of the alleged offences?

Under Indian criminal procedure, investigation, filing of a complaint or prosecution report, and judicial cognizance are distinct legal stages. Cognizance marks the point at which a court first applies its mind to the allegations to determine whether legal proceedings should commence. Until then, allegations remain untested and have not been judicially examined.

If, as a matter of court record, no competent court has yet taken cognizance of the alleged offences against Hari Shankar Tibrewala, it underscores an important legal reality: there has been no judicial assessment that the case should proceed to trial, let alone any finding of guilt.

Despite this, sections of the media have repeatedly published allegations in a manner that risks creating the impression that guilt has already been established. Such reporting can inflict severe reputational and commercial harm long before the judicial process has had an opportunity to function.

The presumption of innocence is not a mere technicality. It is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Every individual is entitled to have allegations tested in court through due process, not decided in the court of public opinion.

The issue extends beyond one individual. If people can effectively be condemned through headlines before a court has even taken cognizance, the safeguards of the justice system are weakened for everyone.

The proper place to determine criminal liability is a courtroom, based on admissible evidence and judicial scrutiny—not media speculation, anonymous sources, or repeated allegations.

Until a competent court has examined the matter in accordance with law, the constitutional presumption of innocence must remain paramount.