JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - In O.J. C. No. 2076 of 2000 the Petitioner, a Special Correspondent of the well-known National Weekly 'India To-day', an accredited Journalist, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction on the Prison Authorities of the State of Orissa and particularly on the Superintendent, Circle Jail at Baripada to petmit him to interview Sri Dara Singh alias Rabindra Kumar Pal, prime accused in the infamous 'Graham Staine's murder case, for publication in 'India To-day'. 2. Petitioner has claimed that he received a fax message from one Sri Pradip Kumar Choudhury, Advocate of Sri Dara Singh intimating that his client desires to give an interview to the Petitioner for publication in the news/magazine 'India To-day'. On receipt of the said communication the Petitioner Immediately contacted the Superintendent, Circle Jail, Baripada over telephone seeking permission to interview the said accused in Jail. The Superintendent (opp. party No. 3) expressed his inability to grant such permission and told him to approach the higher authorities. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on February 21, 2000 to the Inspector General Prisons (opp. party No. 2), but no order on the said representation was communicated to him. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court a counter affidavit affirmed by the Deputy Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Orissa, has been filed on behalf of the State of Orissa and the Inspector General of Prisons (opp. parties 1 & 2). In the counter affidavit it has been disclosed in paragraph 4 that the representation of the Petitioner was duly forwarded to the Home Department by the Inspector General of Prisons and the Home Department of the State by order dated March 8, 2000 rejected the said request of the Petitioner.Although the order dated March 8, 2000 has not been disclosed, in paragraph 5 of the counter a few reasons have been assigned for such refusal. The relevant portion is reproduced below: It is submitted that though the case of Graham Staines murder was investigated by the C.B. 1. and now sub-judice, several other heinous offences against Dara Singh are under investigation by the State Police. Most of them have been charge-sheeted. The relevant portion is reproduced below: It is submitted that though the case of Graham Staines murder was investigated by the C.B. 1. and now sub-judice, several other heinous offences against Dara Singh are under investigation by the State Police. Most of them have been charge-sheeted. Therefore, it may not be desirable to permit (sic) Dara Singh ' Rabindra Kumar Pal by Press, as it may lead to unhealthy publicity and distorted sensationalisation and may also cause communal discord. Moreover this interview may encourage others for similar privilege. More important aspect is that frequent visit of outsiders may create scope for Dara Singh's attempt to escape and therefore, the interview is required to be avoided at this stage. It is further submitted that the Petitioner does not come within the provisions of the Prisons Act and the Jail Manual so as to avail privilege to interview with Dara Singh, the under-trial prisoner. A separate return has been made by the Superintendent of Circle Jail, Baripada (opp. party No. 3). In his counter the opp. party No. 3 has stated that the accused has always been permitted interview with his legal advisors. 4. The Supreme Court in several decisions incIuding the cases of Smt. Prabha Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ), Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra, ) and State of Delhi and Ors. v. Charulata Joshi and Anr. ( A.I.R.1999 S.C.W 1212) have already indicated the law regarding the right of the Press to interview a person/prisoner in jail. The freedom of Press, its right to information and the right of administration to impose reasonable restrictions are not mutually exclusive, but both are part of a Constitutional Scheme, there should not be any conflict so long as both do not over-step the boundaries of reasonableness or do not turn over-zealous or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that even in the 50th year of the Constitution the administration is still not prepared to adjust itself to the basic principles of democratic governance and the citizens are unnecessarily compelled to seek intervention of the Court of law. 5. As already pointed out the Supreme Court has settled the legal position in Prabha Dutta's case that Journalists cannot ordinarily be denied the opportunity of interviewing prisoners. 5. As already pointed out the Supreme Court has settled the legal position in Prabha Dutta's case that Journalists cannot ordinarily be denied the opportunity of interviewing prisoners. The principles that emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be: (i) Right of the Free Press to means of information through interviews is always subject to the willing ness of the persons to be interviewed. (ii) Right of the Press to interview a prisoner cannot be denied unless there are good and weighty reasons for such denial. But such right is not unfettered or unregulated. (iii) Press is free to publish a matter which does not invade other citizens'rights and/or does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. In the context of the aforesaid legal principles, we are to examine the reasons advanced for denying the right to interview. 6. It has been stated that publication of Dara Singh's interview may lead to unhealthy publicity, distorted sensationalisation and may cause communal discord. Excepting the apprehension of causing communal discord other apprehensions are wholly vague and sound alarmist. The incident of Graham Staine's murder has already gained National and even International publicity. It is not understandable to us how the prisoner's interview will cause any unhealthy publicity or. sensationalisation. So far as apprehension of creating communal discord is concerned preventive steps can be provided for. 7. Another apprehension expressed is that frequent visits of outsiders may create scope for Dara Singh's escape. This apprehension is again without any foundation. In Smt. Prabha Dutta's case (supra) the Supreme Court directed to allow representatives of five Newspaper houses to interview the condemned prisoners in Tihar Jail jointly on one-day. It is for the jail authorities to take adequate safety measures to prevent any chance of escape. It may not even be necessary to take the prisoner out of his cell/prison-room for the purpose of interview. Journalists seeking interview must be accredited Journalists and they may be subject to reasonable search in accordance with the rules and Regulations governing such interviews. Morever, the interview may be arranged during day-time. Following the principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court we find that the apprehensions expressed are not good and weighty enough to deny interview to intending News Magazines/News Papers. 8. Morever, the interview may be arranged during day-time. Following the principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court we find that the apprehensions expressed are not good and weighty enough to deny interview to intending News Magazines/News Papers. 8. In this writ petition the Petitioner has annexed the fax message of the Advocate for the accused communicating willingness of the accused to give interview. We are not deciding whether the accused is willing or not.If the Jail authorities have any doubt or suspicion about the willingness of the accused, they may ascertain the said fact before the interview in presence of the interviews and the Advocate of the accused whether he is really willing to give the interview. It is made clear that no interview will be permitted if the accused expresses his unwillingness to give interview. 9. Two other writ petitions being O.J. C. Nos. 2320 and 3087 of 2000 have been filed with the same prayer and under similar circumstances. These two writ petitions have also been heard along with the present O.J. C. No. 2076 of 2000. The reasons given in this judgment equally apply to these two cases also. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of all the three writ petitions (O.J. C. Nos. 2076,2320 & 3087 of 2000) with the following directions: (i) The Superintendent of Circle Jail, Baripada (opp. party No. 3) or the Inspector General of Prisons (opp. party No. 2) whoever is competent will permit the Petitioners to interview accused Dara Singh within the Circle Jail, Baripada on a suitable date and time fixed by the Jail authorities within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order. (ii) Before holding the interview the Petitioners will have to produce their accredition cards to satisfy the authorities that they are accredited Journalists and represent the respective News Papers. News Magazines and News Service. (iii) All the Petitioners will hold interview of the prisoners jointly and it should be completed within a period of one hour. (iv) The Petitioners will allow the jail authorities to cross check the transcript of the interview to ensure that nothing, which is likely to interfere with the pending trial or which may incite communal or sectarian discord or tension is published. (iv) The Petitioners will allow the jail authorities to cross check the transcript of the interview to ensure that nothing, which is likely to interfere with the pending trial or which may incite communal or sectarian discord or tension is published. (v) Petitioners who win interview the accused, will also be personally responsible for ensuring that nothing, which is likely to interfere with the on going investigations or trial or to incite communal or sectarian discord or tension or to violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, Public order,decency and morality, is published. (vi) No interview will be permitted if the accused is not ready and willing to give interview. (vii) The Jail authorities will be at liberty to impose such reasonable restrictions as are necessary to secure safety and security of the accused and to prevent any possibility of escape as apptenended by them. (viii) If necassary, the Jail authorities may search the interviewers in accordance with the rules and Regulations governing the interview. Writ petitions disposed of.