The Kerala High Court quashed defamation cases against two media organisations that telecasted allegations of sexual assault against Member of Parliament K.C. Venugopal.

The Court observed that the media had only reported what was in public domain and the media was only doing their duty.

The Court was hearing two Criminal Miscellaneous cases, one each by Malyalam Communications and Asianet News Network seeking the quashing of charges relating to defamation.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held, "When no malice or bias, much less mens rea can be attributed on the part of the petitioners in telecasting a news item, the prosecution for the defamation initiated is liable to be prematurely terminated for want of mens rea."

A woman during an interview with Asianet had shown a letter containing a statement to the effect that she was sexually assaulted by K.C. Venugopal at the residence of a Minister in the Kerala government. Venugopal alleged a conspiracy to defame him and topple the United Democratic Front ruling at the time of the incident.

Venugopal had submitted that Asianet and the accused woman had forged and fabricated a letter allegedly written by the woman to a Judicial Magistrate. The letter was telecasted by Asianet and a channel owned by Malayalam Communications Ltd. to malign and tarnish the Venugopal's image with criminal intention, he submitted.

He further submitted that this amounted to a violation of Rule 6(1)(i) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, which prohibits telecasting news items or interviews which criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person. Hence, it was alleged that the two media organisations had committed the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

A judicial enquiry was ordered by the government based on the allegations made by the accused woman and that the judicial commission had ordered criminal investigation against the person mentioned by the woman, the Court recorded. The commission had subsequently made certain recommendations, including to register criminal cases.

The Court also noted that the woman had convened a press conference and revealed certain statements which the media published. "This shows that the news is in public domain." The Court expressed the opinion that the media organisations cannot be blamed by the complainant, Venugopal, and the media was "only doing their duty."

"The media only published the statements given by the 7th accused in a press conference. It cannot be said that the same amounts to defamation and media people should be prosecuted for the same. Therefore, for that simple reason, the prosecution against the petitioners is to be set aside." the Court held.

The Court clarified that Venugopal was free to proceed against her and the Trial Court would consider the case against her untrammelled by any observation in this Order.

Malayalam Communications Ltd., v. K.C. Venugopal [CRL MC 8552 Of 2017]

Asianet News Network Private Ltd. v. State of Kerala [CRL MC 355 OF 2019]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates P.M.Rafiq, V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, Ajeesh K.Sasi, C.Jayakiran, Mitha Sudhindran, M.Revikrishnan, V.C.Sarath and Vipin Narayan

Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith T.R. and Advocates P. Martin Jose, P. Prijith, Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Public Prosecutor Angeetharaj N.R., Suman Chakravarthy P.Martin Jose and Thomas P.Kuruvilla


Click here to read/download the Order



Kerala High CourtJustice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Tushar Kohli