JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---This Criminal Writ Petition raises issues of considerable seriousness which are also of immense public importance. It concerns the sanctity that is required to be attached to the right of privacy and the aspect of confidentiality that must be observed by public authorities entrusted with investigations, with particular accent on cases relating to women. Briefly stated, it has been pointed out to this Court that two nuns, who deserved general admiration for the fact that they were looking after a group of 20 homeless boys at an institution called "Sneh Sadan" at Jogeshwari, were found dead on the morning of 16-11-1990 with multiple stab injuries on their bodies. The institution functioned from a small house where the conditions were so austere that robbery appeared to be the least of the likely causes for the incident. The Police Authorities took charge of the bodies and sent the same for post--mortem examination in normal course. On 18-11-1990, the incident was reported in the headlines of three leading daily newspapers wherein statements were made to the effect that the examination of the bodies indicated that the nuns were used to sexual intercourse and that one of them appeared to be suffering from a veneral disease. Having regard to the sexual overtones in the disclosures and the fact that the deceased were not only women but that they belonged to a religious body, the press reports on the nuns created a sense of alarm and provoked a strong reaction of resentment from various quarters. The record indicates that subsequently the post-mortem reports and the Chemical Analyser's Report established conclusively that both the allegations made against the deceased women were baseless and untrue. It also emerges that even though three full months have passed since the unfortunate incident, the Police Authorities have so far not apprehended the assailants. 2. The present Criminal Writ Petition has questioned the property of making disclosures that are basically scandalous and offensive with the sole purpose of indulging in sensationalism and possibly diverting the attention from the main issue, namely, the detection of the crime. 2. The present Criminal Writ Petition has questioned the property of making disclosures that are basically scandalous and offensive with the sole purpose of indulging in sensationalism and possibly diverting the attention from the main issue, namely, the detection of the crime. The petitioners have prayed for a direction that an enquiry be held for the purpose of ascertaining the source of the reports that appeared in the Press and fixing the responsibility for the same as also for a direction to the Police to carry out a vigorous investigation into the crime so that the assailants can be brought to trial. 3. Having regard to the importance of this case, we had directed the additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Greater Bombay, and the Additional Coroner to enquire into the charges levelled against them which were to the effect that the disclosures were at the instance of their respective Departments and to file Affidavits within a week's time. On 18-2-1991, we had passed the following order :- "We are pained to observe that information has been disclosed to the Press which is not in consonance with the facts collected during the investigation. Police authorities conducting investigation in offences of serious nature must act with due responsibility in disseminating information to the Press at an intermediate stage and that too on a factual basis. It must avoid sensationalism and undue publicity. Allegations in this petition appear to point out exactly the same. It is therefore desirable that the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 to enquire into the allegations made in this petition and to file reply within one week. S.D. one week." 4. Shri Govind Madhav Deshpande, the Additional Coroner of the City of Bombay, has filed his Affidavit stating that the post-mortem on the two bodies was done on the morning of 17-11-1990 by Dr. Marathe. He stated that apart form this doctor, Dr. Phatnani (Deputy Coroner) and two Police Officers by the name of Inamdar and either Khan or Shaikh were present in the morgue, which appears rather unusual. He also mentioned that some medical students were also present. He stated that Dr. Phatnani explained the findings of the preliminary examinations to the students and that the Police Officers also took their notes, at which time Dr. Shinde also arrived at the morgue. Ordinarily, we would have expected Dr. He also mentioned that some medical students were also present. He stated that Dr. Phatnani explained the findings of the preliminary examinations to the students and that the Police Officers also took their notes, at which time Dr. Shinde also arrived at the morgue. Ordinarily, we would have expected Dr. Phatnani to have filed an Affidavit clarifying this crucial aspect of the case and in particular as to how and under what authority he arrived at the so called 'preliminary findings". Opinions expressed in the course of a post mortem are subject to scrutiny and are invariably to be tested in the course of the subsequent proceedings, and it appears both dangerous and reckless to spout conclusions which often find their way to the Press. The Police Officers, Inamdar and Khan or Shaikh, have also avoided filing their Affidavits which could have certainly thrown light on the question as to how the "preliminary conclusions" found their way to the Press. The Additional Coroner also states that certain organs and tissues were taken out for further examination by the Chemical Analyser. After Dr. Phatnani left, the two Police Officers stayed behind. It is significant that the Additional Coroner has pointed out: "That nobody from the Press was present at that time and therefore no question of disclosure of any of the findings of the post-mortem examination can arise. That apart from the aforesaid persons none else was present at that time. The post-mortem report was then duly deposited with the office of this Court. That no where in the post mortem report nor by anyone present at that time, it was ever mentioned that the nuns were accustomed to sexual intercourse or that one of them showed signs of a veneral disease." He further clarified that none of the Medical Officers nor any other official attached to that office had briefed any reporters or journalists in that matter and that nobody had approached him for any information and none was supplied to anyone. Finally, he stated that from the enquiry conducted by him with the Medical Officers and other officials of the Court, he has stated on oath that no one from the Coroner's Court had disclosed anything either to the Press or to any outsider regarding the subject-matter of this case. In sum and substance, the Additional Coroner has pointed that his Department cannot be held responsible for the disclosures. In sum and substance, the Additional Coroner has pointed that his Department cannot be held responsible for the disclosures. Significantly, this Affidavit is decidedly silent about the all important aspects of the matter, namely, the steps, if any, that were taken to maintain confidentiality at the stage of post-mortem and sage custody of the relevant records. 5. Shri Sudhakar Shankarrao Suradkar, Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Greater Bombay, has pointed out that the Jogeshwari Police Station registered an offence in respect to this incident of 16-11-1990 and as per the usual practice, on 17-11-1990, the information of this case was released to the press by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Control Room. He has produced the copy of the Press release, which is sated 17-11-1990 and which gives the broad outlines of the unfortunate incident and the fact that the Police have taken the finger-prints and other vital pieces of evidence and are investigating into the matter. The Press release does not contain even the remotest reference to the type of appealling allegations that appeared in the newspapers on the next day. The Additional Commissioner of Police has further stated that on 19-11-1990, considering the gravity of the case, the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Bombay by the Commissioner of Police. Significantly, he has pointed out that the post-mortem reports were made available for the first time to the Police only on that day. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., in his Press release dated 18-11-1990, clarified that the Press had published conclusions that were premature and that the Chemical Analyser's Reports were still awaited. He has further pointed out that on 29-1-1991, after the forensic reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory were made available, the Crime Branch, C.I.D. issued a press release dated 29-1-1991 wherein it was pointed out that the obnoxious versions given in some sections of the Press were established to be wholly incorrect and, furthermore, that the reports that had appeared in the Press were not based on the Police information or on any documents. Unlike the earlier Affidavit filed by the Additional Coroner, this Affidavit does not state that none of the officers connected with the case had at any time briefed the Press or any particular journalists, even though two of the officers were present at the post-mortem and took notes of Dr. Phatnani's observations on the preliminary findings. Unlike the earlier Affidavit filed by the Additional Coroner, this Affidavit does not state that none of the officers connected with the case had at any time briefed the Press or any particular journalists, even though two of the officers were present at the post-mortem and took notes of Dr. Phatnani's observations on the preliminary findings. The lingering doubt that arises, therefore, is as to whether some individuals had made statements in addition to the official communications. In substance, therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Police has averred that the reports that appeared in the Press on 18-11-1990 cannot be attributed to the Police Department nor are the same based on any document because the Police themselves received the post-mortem reports one day after the news appeared in the Press, namely, on 19-11-1990 for the first time. 6. Shri. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing before on behalf of the petitioners, has criticised the two Affidavits and has submitted that the two sets of Authorities are now trying to disclaim their responsibility and are desperately trying to cover up for an impossible situation. He pointed out that "The Times of India", "The Indian Express" and "The Free Press Journal" are all publications of some standing, that they are not the class of papers which would indulge in scandal-mongering, and that they could not have published such material in their main headlines unless it had emanated from an official quarter. Unfortunately, the publications in question are not parties to this proceeding as otherwise they would have thrown light on the source of the material. The denials by the Police and the Authorities attached to the Coroner's Court have compounded the matter further in so far as it is prima facie difficult to accept the position that in a case of such seriousness that all the different newspapers would fabricate such offensive material and that the reports published by all of them would be identical. 7. It is quite inconceivable in this situation to accept the contention, as is sought to be advanced on behalf of the Police Authorities and the Authorities attached to the Coroner's Court, that the Press could have published the damaging material on the basis of his own conclusions. 7. It is quite inconceivable in this situation to accept the contention, as is sought to be advanced on behalf of the Police Authorities and the Authorities attached to the Coroner's Court, that the Press could have published the damaging material on the basis of his own conclusions. The irresistible inference, to our mind, is that somebody in authority who was connected with the case and to the investigation must have made the disclosures to the press, as otherwise newspapers of some status would not have accepted the material as authentic and given such wide publicity to it. This in no way condones the act on the part of the publications who, to our mind, even in the face of such disclosures, ought to have acted with a sense of propriety and responsibility before publishing such scandalous statements. In this view of the matter, we are not prepared to accept the Affidavits at their face value because it is essential that a due and proper enquiry be held and that the responsibility for what has happened be fixed. It is now common ground, and stands firmly established from the Chemical Analyser's Reports, that the entire set of allegations published against the deceased nuns were false and baseless and, consequently, wholly unjustified. This aggravates the situation all the more and makes it imperative that the damage be undone. 8. The right to one's reputation and the right of privacy have not only to be upheld but are required to be strictly enforced. This issue becomes all the more important in the case of a dead person who cannot defend attacks against one's character and reputation. It is quite reprehensible, to say the least, for such insinuations to be made against unfortunate victims of a brutal attack of the present type. In fact, one would have expected an obituary full of praise for the selfless service rendered by these nuns to the poorest sections of society. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every woman is entitled to privacy and no one can invade on this privacy. See (State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar)1 , A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 207 : 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 238 . Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every woman is entitled to privacy and no one can invade on this privacy. See (State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar)1 , A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 207 : 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 238 . This is all the more important in the case of a deceased person and where the deceased happened to be women who are entitled to esteem and admiration for their commitments to the cause of poor orphan children. Prima facie, we find it difficult to accept the case made out before us which is to the effect that none of the Government Authorities had disclosed the material that formed the subject-matter of the post-mortem reports of the nuns. In this view of the matter, we direct that the Director General of Police shall hold a thorugh enquiry into this case for the purpose of fixing the responsibility for the publication of the obnoxious and scandalous reports that appeared in the Press. This enquiry shall essentially concern itself with ascertaining the person/persons responsible for the dissemination of the matter and those responsible for its publication and a report shall be filed before this Court within a period of 30 days. 9. The petitioners have also made a serious grievance about the fact that the investigation into the crime is not being carried out property. There are specific allegations of total inaction on the part of the Police. Shri Radhakrishnan submitted that instances are rampant where the Police are interested in shielding culprits and that there is a strong suspicion that persons interested in making huge money out of the property are behind the crime. He further stated that the Bombay Police have demonstrated remarkable efficiency as a general rule and, therefore, their inability to nab the criminals in this case gives rise to grave doubt. The Additional Commissioner of Police, in his Affidavit, has stated that the Police have not been able to get the necessary clues from which they could find out the identify of the persons involved in the offence. He has, however, stated that the investigation is still in progress. This Court would not normally interfere with the process of investigation, but it is equally necessary to guard against the charge of inaction on the part of the Investigating Machinery because delay in a criminal case is almost fatal to a prosecution. He has, however, stated that the investigation is still in progress. This Court would not normally interfere with the process of investigation, but it is equally necessary to guard against the charge of inaction on the part of the Investigating Machinery because delay in a criminal case is almost fatal to a prosecution. The double murder of the nuns, as rightly pointed out by the petitioners, has sent shock waves through the city of Bombay and has also undermined the efficacy of the law enforcement machinery. It would, therefore, be essential that all the necessary steps be taken immediately, as any further delay would only worsen the situation. Having regard to the importance of this case, we direct the Home Secretary, Government of Maharashtra to personally ensure that the investigation is entrusted to an agency/officers of sufficient competence and that all necessary steps be taken for the purpose of apprehending the assailants. The Home Secretary shall file a report with this Court reporting within a period of 30 days. 10. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and we propose to dispose of this petition with certain directions as expendiency of certain follow-up action is of paramount importance. Shri Radhakrishnan has pointed out to us that this is not the first time that shameful allegations have been made against a woman who has been a victim of criminal assault and that it is, therefore, necessary for this Court to further direct the formulation of certain guidelines with regard to the conduct of the investigating Authorities in matters relating to disclosures in the course of investigations. In our opinion, this issue requires serious consideration, for which purpose we direct the State Government to constitute a Committee consisting of representatives of the Home Department and the Police Department and the Coroner of Bombay, a representative from the Bombay University's Department of Law, and a representative from the Press Council of India to lay down definite norms which shall thereafter issued as directions to the concerned Authorities entrusted with the investigation of criminal offences. This Committee shall lay down the specific safeguards that the Investigations, the manner in which the confidentiality of the relevant proceedings and records shall be maintained and the general principles of righteousness which must be observed in all cases, particularly where women are involved. This Committee shall lay down the specific safeguards that the Investigations, the manner in which the confidentiality of the relevant proceedings and records shall be maintained and the general principles of righteousness which must be observed in all cases, particularly where women are involved. The Committee be constituted on a time-bound basis and its report along with the follow-up action taken by the Government shall be placed before this Court within a period of 3 months. 11. Before parting with this case, we find it necessary to reiterate, as has been already observed, that the news reports in question, in our opinion, transcended both the bounds of decency and propriety. We, therefore, direct that the Press Council of India, to whom a copy of this order shall be forwarded, should independently look into this matter and take appropriate steps for the purpose of ensuring that there is no recurrence of such incidents. 12. We accordingly dispose of this petition. Each of the concerned Authorities shall report back to this Court within the time-frame specified by us in this order. We grant liberty to the parties to move the Court for appropriate directions thereafter, if so advised. Order accordingly. -----