Media Publishing Statements Made In Press Conference Not Defamatory: Kerala HC Quashes Congress MP's Case Against Kairali TV, Asianet
Quashing a criminal case against Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network for telecasting a program featuring an allegedly defamatory and fabricated letter about Congress MP K C Venugopal, the Kerala High Court said that the statements in question were already in public domain hence it can't be termed defamatory. In doing so, the court underscored that the...
Quashing a criminal case against Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network for telecasting a program featuring an allegedly defamatory and fabricated letter about Congress MP K C Venugopal, the Kerala High Court said that the statements in question were already in public domain hence it can't be termed defamatory.
In doing so, the court underscored that the alleged statements made by a woman about the Congress leader, were made in a press conference and so the media cannot be prosecuted for defamation.
Venugopal had filed the defamation case, accusing the media outlets of committing offences under IPC Sections 499 and 500. The Media companies had approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them, which were pending before the Ernakulam Chief Judicial Magistrate Court.
A single judge bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that there is no evidence to prove that the TV Channels telecasted the program with mens rea or malice and that the MP cannot blame the media, adding that the woman had convened a press conference and made certain statements which were published. It said:
The allegation is that the media committed criminal conspiracy by telecasting a forged and fabricated defamatory letter allegedly written by a woman in which she alleged that she was sexually assaulted by MP Venugopal. The defamatory letter was allegedly telecasted by the petitioners on April 3 and 4, 2016.
Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network and its management were arrayed as accused 1 to 6 and the woman was arrayed as the accused no. 7. Accused 1 to 6 are the petitioners in this case who had approached the Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
The complainant alleged that the visual media conspired to publish the forged defamatory letter to tarnish his reputation and to defame his party. He submitted that the visual media telecasted the letter to defame him before the public fully knowing that the contents of the letter are fabricated and forged.
He further alleged that the woman's statements are full of inconsistencies and contradictions and she conspired with the visual media to malign his reputation. It is also alleged that the TV Channels violated Rule 6(1)(i) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, which prohibits telecasting news items or interviews maligning an individual.
On the other hand, the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence of defamation was made out.
The Court noted that a judiciary enquiry was also being conducted and the woman's letter was marked as an exhibit in that inquiry before the judicial commission. The Court also noted that a judicial commission recommended for registration of criminal cases against certain persons named by her.
The Court observed that there is no material to prove that the TV Channels telecasted the news item with malice or bias. It further observed that the woman had organized a press conference during which she made certain statements. It noted that the media had only reported the statements made by Saritha at the press conference.
It also noted that the complaint also does not mention the actual words used by the woman which was telecasted by the media.
As such, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the media entities (accused 1 to 6) and allowed their petitions. However, it clarified that Venugopal was free to proceed against Saritha and the Trial Court could consider it "untrammeled by any observation" in the high court's order.
Case Title: Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704