The excerpted interview from the documentary film India’s Daughter with December 16 rape convict Mukesh Singh, after creating much shock, awe and disgust seems to have landed in a controversy. Home Minister Rajnath Singh reportedly sought an explanation from Tihar Jail authorities about how Mukesh Singh was allowed to give an interview. The minister, according to sources, is upset “over a rapist being interviewed by a foreign channel”.

Tihar jail officials are set to send a second legal notice to British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), according to reports. The first notice was sent in November 2014. According to the Indian Express report, British Filmmaker Leslee Udwin and BBC were allowed to interview Singh on the condition that the final documentary be sent to prison authorities for vetting before it is screened. Tihar has not received any footage so far, says the report.

Meanwhile, the interview itself has divided people on Twitter. While some felt the interview underscores the pervasiveness of victim-blaming, others wondered what the film achieves by giving space and time to someone who obviously suffers from a sick mind set. Singh in the interview says: “She [Jyoti] should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they would have dropped her off after ‘doing her’ and only hit the boy.”

Besides there also seems to be confusion on whether what Udwin did was legally permissible or not. Udwin, on her part, has explained that she had got permission from MHA, Tihar and Mukesh Singh for the interview and followed all the instructions, and even showed raw footage to jail authorities. Udwin took two years to make the movie and sold its rights to BBC later.

While debates on the merits of the film and what it achieves could wait till the documentary releases on March 8, India’s Daughter seems to be on sound legal grounds. “There is no law that states a journalist cannot interview a convict or an accused as long as it is voluntary and backed by legal advice. The prisoner being interviewed should have complete understanding of the implication of the press interaction and there should be no problem as long as he or she is not being trapped into an interview,” says Colin Gonsalves, Founder Director of Human Rights Law Network.

Gonsalves added that once the jail authorities have allowed the interview, they have no business acting like the Censor Board and vetting a film. “Of course, it goes without saying that no courts can take cognisance of the interview as proof. But Tihar can certainly only give permission and not decide on what goes in the film,” he says.

Lawyer and columnist Apar Gupta states that only the courts can prohibit reporting on a pending criminal case if they feel the reporting can influence proceedings of the trial.

Mukesh Singh’s appeal to stay his execution is pending before the Supreme Court.

As far as Tihar wanting to vet the film, Gupta states it is unlikely that a jail authority can have such powers. “From a policy perspective, prisoners must have reasonable liberty to determine themselves their interaction with the press, especially in high-profile cases that concern public interest,” he says.

Our calls and text messages to the Tihar jail public relations officer went unanswered.

Many journalists have indeed interviewed undertrials and convicts in prison in the past. Notable among these were interviews with Afzal Guru, Swami Aseemanand, Binayak Sen and many other convicts on death row. There was also the case of a murder accused giving a telephonic interview to a local news channel from Parappana Agrahara Central Jail in Bengaluru. The 15-minute interview had the accused talking about how he was being tortured by the police.

Update: Delhi Police has lodged a First Information Report in connection with the interview, according to Press Trust of India.