Judgment :- 1. By this Public Interest Litigation petitioner, in effect, seeks a direction against the respondents that they should not share the progress or material which came to light during investigation of crime No.R.C.No.19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad, dated 17.08.2011, with electronic or print media in any other manner, except release through press notes as per C.B.I.Manual. 2. We have heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. Cases for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would base his submissions in support of the prayer aforesaid by placing strong reliance upon various news reports appearing in different print media, which are appended to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel contends that while investigating the aforesaid crime, the details of investigation including steps which the investigating agency is taking and the one it would take in future, are being selectively leaked and disclosed to the electronic and print media as is evident from the various press reports. Learned counsel submits that the investigation undertaken under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C. is required to be completed without unnecessary delay and the police officers are required to forward the report to the Magistrate concerned for further action under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that on account of the selective leaks the reputed industrial houses have restricted or stopped investing in the State and an atmosphere of witch hunting prevails. He also contends that C.B.I. manual contains instructions to be followed relating to public information and media publicity of the C.B.I. work in order to ensure that information is released to the press or media. Therefore, the briefing of media on investigation is regulated by the guidelines under the manual which are quoted in para 19 of the affidavit. He further submits that contrary thereto every day briefing by respondent No.3 shows undue haste in going to press and over enthusiasm which has effected development and investments in the State. He, therefore, seeks a direction that investigation updates be released to the print and electronic media as per the C.B.I. manual, referred to above, whereby the right of privacy of persons who are described as suspects by press would be protected. He, therefore, seeks a direction that investigation updates be released to the print and electronic media as per the C.B.I. manual, referred to above, whereby the right of privacy of persons who are described as suspects by press would be protected. He has placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Khatri and others v. State of Bihar and others ( 1981 (2) SCC 493 ) as well as Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and others v. Union of India and others. ( 1997 (4) SCC 306 ). 4. Sri P.Kesava Rao, learned Special Standing Counsel for C.B.I. cases took notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and emphatically denied that there is any leakage of information as contended by the petitioner by either of respondent Nos.2 and 3. He contended that what is appearing in the electronic and print media is the news bytes by the reporters and not on account of any information divulged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the press or electronic media. 5. As stated above, a large number of press reports are appended to the writ petition and reliance is placed upon many of them during the hearing to substantiate the allegations in the affidavit as above. 6. It is well settled that press reports cannot be equated on par with evidence admissible in law and, therefore, the press reports are not relied upon by the Courts. However, for the purpose of this case, since the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel are based upon and are linked with the said press reports, we had allowed learned Senior Counsel to refer to them and we propose to deal with the said contentions as hereunder. 7. The affidavit of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is an Advocate and has sought to bring his legal grievance, in public interest, to the notice of this Court. It is, however, significant to notice specific averment in the affidavit in para 25, which reads as follows:- “… Though there is no direct evidence that the media is given the details and the stage of investigation by the 3rd respondent, there is no possibility of leakage of the investigation to the press. If the 3rd respondent conducts investigation in a confidential and secret manner, the public at large will not be confused and wrong signals do not get communicated to the people of the State….” 8. If the 3rd respondent conducts investigation in a confidential and secret manner, the public at large will not be confused and wrong signals do not get communicated to the people of the State….” 8. The above extract, therefore, categorically shows that even according to the petitioner also there is no evidence of any information being given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the press or electronic media, updating on the investigation. 9. The press reports relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, which were pointed out and read during the hearing also do not substantiate the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel. The said press reports are merely reports with regard to the proceedings in the C.B.I. Court during the hearing of bail applications and other hearings from time to time. What is reported in the press is thus substantially the contentions of the C.B.I. before the C.B.I. court during the hearing in such proceeding. None of the reports attribute that those reports are based upon any press briefings by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The reports are mere reports by the reporters with regard to the events that took place before the C.B.I. court during the hearing on various matters. In other words, the said reports are reports regarding allegations and counter allegations between the persons arrayed as accused on the one hand and C.B.I. on the other hand. It cannot be denied that both the parties are entitled to put forth their contentions before the Court in support of their respective cases and during the hearing both the parties rely upon various material and circumstances in support of their respective cases. The contention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the C.B.I. Court in the matters, which are being heard by the said court, cannot be equated to leakage to the media or briefing to the media so as to update the media on the stage of investigation. So even if we assume relevancy for the purpose of this case and analyze the press reports, as a part of evidence, it is not discernible, that there is any disclosure of information with regard to the stage of investigation by respondent Nos.2 and 3 nor it amounts to any unauthorized leakage to the media at the instance of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 10. 10. So far as the guidelines under the C.B.I. manual for press/media and publicity is concerned, learned Senior Counsel fairly stated that the said guidelines are not statutory in nature and it is not the case of the petitioner that there was any authorized press or media briefing by respondent Nos.2 and 3 at any stage. The mechanism under the said guidelines, therefore, has not come into play even according to the petitioner. 11. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Khatri and others (1st cited above) does not assist the petitioner either on facts or on the principle as the petitioner himself is unable to establish the foundational facts necessary for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. In the decision 2nd cited, though the Supreme Court had recognized right of citizens to know about the affairs of the Government, the said right is held to be not absolute. The said decision also does not help learned Senior Counsel to support the present writ petition. 12. After we had heard and reserved this writ petition on 04.06.2012, on the same day another writ petition viz., P.I.L.No.187 of 2012 was also listed before us for admission hearing. We have heard that writ petition also. It is interesting to notice that said writ petition also is filed in public interest by a practicing advocate seeking relief against respondent Nos.7 to 10-the print media to restrain them from publishing news items or articles without obtaining authentic confirmation thereof from authentic sources and for consequential directions against respondent Nos.1 and 2 viz., the Union of India and the Press Counsel of India to frame guidelines with regard to publication of news items. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also refers to the same crime number, which is being investigated by the C.B.I., and it is also alleged that respondent Nos.7 to 10 are articulating and concocting their own versions, which are being published in the said newspapers. Petitioner submits that news items are published without valid proofs or confirmations from the concerned officials and as such seeks that in order to maintain ethical standards, it is necessary for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to frame appropriate guidelines to check sensationalisation by an unsubstantiated reporting of news by media. 13. Petitioner submits that news items are published without valid proofs or confirmations from the concerned officials and as such seeks that in order to maintain ethical standards, it is necessary for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to frame appropriate guidelines to check sensationalisation by an unsubstantiated reporting of news by media. 13. It would be noticed from the averments in that writ petition that according to the petitioner, publication of news reports referred to are totally unconfirmed news reports based on the understanding of the reporters of the respective news papers and the petitioner further confirms that none of the said reports are authenticated or confirmed by the investigating agency i.e., C.B.I. The very basis of that writ petition is that unauthorized and unconfirmed news reports are being published and the said allegation being directly contrary to the allegation made in the writ petition, referred to above, satisfies us that the Writ Petition No.172 of 2012, suffers from lack of any material to substantiate the allegations. So far as the second writ petition is concerned, the issue raised therein is already seized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether any guidelines can be framed with regard to print and electronic media as sought for by the petitioner. 14. It is also significant to notice that no print or electronic media is made a party to this writ petition and no relief is sought against them. In our view, therefore, the writ petition is founded on an assumption that there is unauthorized leakage or briefing with regard to investigation by respondent Nos.2 and 3. As noted above, we find no basis for such assumption and in the absence of the petitioner establishing foundational facts necessary for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 15. The Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.