Be Vigilant Of Unwanted Defamation Cases Against Press, Media Persons: Kerala High Court To District Judiciary
The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right...
The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right to know. The Court thus directed the Trial Courts to be vigilant while considering prosecutions alleging defamation against Press and Media persons.
“...it is high time to alert the criminal courts in the District Judiciary in this regard. Accordingly, 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 newspapers 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.”
In the present case, defamation under Section 499 and punishable under Section 500 of the IPC was alleged against the Managing Director, Editor and Reporter of the Malayalama Manorama newspaper.
The petitioner media persons argued that the publication of a news article should not be considered defamation and prayed for quashing the unwanted prosecution against them.
The Court found that the news item about the removal of some waste materials by the Municipal Councillor cannot be termed as defamatory. The Court thus stated that there is no prima facie case that media persons published the news item with requisite intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that it would damage the reputation of the complainant, the Municipal Councilor.
The Court elaborated on the importance of Freedom of the Press and stated that restricting its powers would amount to "mobocracy". It noted that the press and news media play a key role in informing the public about significant developments in the country. It added that while press freedom and the public's right to know are crucial, they may be subject to legal limitations.
The Court stated,
“Indubitably, freedom of the Press to give news and the right of the people to know the important developments in the country shall go hand in hand in a democratic country, to maintain the equilibrium of democratic principles. Hurdle on freedom of the Press is not democracy and the same leads to mobocracy. “
The Court went on to state that if accurate news reporting was termed as defamatory, then there is a breach of Freedom of the Press. It emphasized that the Trial Court must exercise vigilance when taking cognizance of defamation cases against the press and media personnel, as such actions could have serious implications for press freedom and the public's right to be informed.
As such, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Milu Dandapani
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, Advocates Manoj Ramaswamy, Jolima George, Aparna G., C.B.Sabeela
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Case Title: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 11320 OF 2023