Hurdle On Freedom Of Press Leads To Mobocracy: Kerala HC Directs Criminal Courts To Exercise Greater Vigilance In Defamation Cases Against Newspapers & Media Persons
The Kerala High Court has directed the Criminal Courts within the District Judiciary to exercise greater vigilance when taking cognizance of defamation cases against newspapers and media persons.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking to quash complaints and subsequent proceedings registered against the Petitioners.
The bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “the judicial officers presiding criminal courts in the District Judiciary, are specifically directed to be more vigilant in future, while taking cognizance, alleging commission of offence of defamation against news papers and media persons, so as to ensure that, cognizance shall be taken only when the ingredients discussed hereinabove, are made out and such exercise shall not be in a callous and mechanical manner.”
Advocate Millu Dandapani appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Manoj Ramaswamy appeared for the Respondent.
The respondent/complainant lodged a complaint alleging that accused Nos.1 to 13 committed an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. In the complaint, the publications made by Malayala Manorama Daily and other newspapers were detailed. The trial court recorded the statement of the complainant, took cognizance in the matter and proceeded further.
The Court mentioned the decision in Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KLT OnLine 1835] and quoted, “Summarizing the legal position as regard the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 499 of IPC punishable under Section 500 of IPC…… it is held that in order to constitute offence of defamation, the ingredients are; (i) a person to make some imputation concerning any other person; (ii) such imputation must be made either (a) with intention, or (b) knowledge, or (c) having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. (iii) imputation could be, by (a) words, either spoken or written, or (b) by making signs, or (c) visible representations (iv) imputation could be either made or published. Under the said provision, the lawgiver has made the making or publishing of any imputation with a requisite intention or knowledge or reason to believe, as provided therein, that the imputation will harm the reputation of any person, the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation.”
The Court read the publication and noted that on no stretch of the imagination, it could be held that, the editor and publisher who published the news, published the same, with a requisite intention or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the 2nd respondent/complainant, in any manner and as such, no offence under Section 499 of the IPC, prima facie, made out against the petitioners.
The Court further observed, “Hurdle on freedom of the Press is not democracy and the same leads to mobocracy. No doubt, freedom of the Press and the right of people to know the news shall be subject to restrictions imposed by law. If accurate reportage of the news is encircled as defamatory, without having the essentials to constitute the said offence, the same will stand in the way of freedom of the Press. Therefore, the trial court, while taking cognizance for the offence of defamation, should ensure that, there are sufficient materials to take cognizance, otherwise, the said course of action may lead to dangerous ramifications and the same would infringe the freedom of Press and people’s right to know, guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint and further proceedings.
Finally, the Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
Cause Title: MALAYALA MANORAMA CO.LTD v. STATE OF KERALA (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/61039)