How Did a Reporter Interview Lawrence Bishnoi in Jail? Supreme Court Questions Security Breach
In a development that has rattled both the media and legal circles, the Supreme Court of India on June 24, 2025, took strong exception to a mysterious jail interview of notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, questioning how a reporter managed to enter the prison premises to conduct it. The apex court’s ire came during a hearing involving former Punjab DSP Gursewak Singh Sandhu, whose plea challenging a summons notice under Section 41A of the CrPC was dismissed with sharp remarks.
Justice Demands Accountability
A bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh refused to entertain Sandhu’s petition, stating that a similar writ is already pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, scheduled for hearing on July 3. But what stood out was the Supreme Court’s stern inquiry: “How did the reporter get inside the jail to interview Lawrence Bishnoi?”
The Court highlighted that Sandhu was the officer in charge the night before the interview was aired — a timeline that casts suspicion on potential security lapses or worse, complicity. The bench made it clear: such actions undermine the entire justice system and demand serious answers.
A Twisted Trail of Media, Crime, and Power
The controversy stems from a 2023 televised interview of Bishnoi, who was then in judicial custody in connection with the Sidhu Moosewala murder case. The interview was broadcast by ABP Sanjha, sparking public outrage and legal scrutiny. It wasn’t just about sensational journalism — the interview implied a failure in prison protocols, possible use of mobile phones inside jail, and lax oversight by police officials.
Following the interview, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognizance, leading to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate how such access was granted to a high-profile criminal inside a high-security facility.
Sandhu’s Side: “I’m Being Targeted”
Gursewak Singh Sandhu, the then DSP, argued that he is being unfairly targeted, despite not being named in the FIR. Represented by senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, Sandhu claimed he had no direct connection to Bishnoi and accused authorities of deliberate harassment.
He pointed out that even the journalist who conducted the interview has received interim protection from the Supreme Court, yet Sandhu is being repeatedly summoned under Section 41A. His petition was an appeal for relief — an attempt to clear his name before the High Court proceedings.
But the Supreme Court remained unconvinced. While acknowledging the pending High Court case, the Justices questioned the broader issue: How does a gangster in custody get such privileged media access? Who allowed it? And why?
The Larger Picture: Cracks in the Justice System?
This incident shines a harsh spotlight on India’s prison security and the nexus between crime, media, and authority. Lawrence Bishnoi is not just another inmate — he’s an alleged criminal mastermind whose name has surfaced in several high-profile cases. His ability to influence narratives from behind bars poses serious concerns for national security and public trust in the criminal justice system.
The role of media, too, is under scrutiny. While journalism is meant to expose, inform, and empower, the ethical boundary is crossed when it enables criminals to publicly air their views from within the very walls meant to restrict them.
What’s Next?
With the High Court expected to resume hearing on July 3, all eyes are now on the SIT findings, potential disciplinary actions against officials, and perhaps even a re-evaluation of jail security protocols across India. For now, the Supreme Court’s stinging rebuke sends a clear message: no one is above scrutiny, especially when justice is at stake.
