May Have Chilling Effect On Press Freedom: Orissa HC Quashes Case Against Journalist Accused Of Dissuading Public From Availing Covid-19 Treatment
The Orissa High Court has quashed pending criminal proceedings against an Input Editor of the news agency named Odisha Television Network (OTV) for telecasting a conversation between a Covid-19 patient and another person wherein the patient criticised certain inactions of the State Government in tackling the COVID pandemic.While granting relief to the journalist, the Single Judge Bench of...
The Orissa High Court has quashed pending criminal proceedings against an Input Editor of the news agency named Odisha Television Network (OTV) for telecasting a conversation between a Covid-19 patient and another person wherein the patient criticised certain inactions of the State Government in tackling the COVID pandemic.
While granting relief to the journalist, the Single Judge Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar underlined the importance of ‘press freedom’ and observed,
“The Court is of the view that that the continuation of such criminal case against the Petitioner, who is an Input Editor of OTV is likely to have a chilling effect on press freedom.”
Factual Background
The audio recording of a telephonic conversation between two men, one of whom claimed to have returned from a COVID Hospital after being identified as a Corona positive was telecast by the OTV News Channel on August 6, 2020.
The said conversation was also uploaded on YouTube and other social media platforms by OTV. The allegation was that one of the men in the conversation had undermined the seriousness of the corona pandemic and claimed that it would be cured without treatment and medicines.
Therefore, an FIR was registered under Sections 269, 270, 120-B and 505(1)(b) of the IPC read with Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 against the petitioner (an Input Editor of OTV) on the ground that by circulating the above audio recording, OTV was dissuading the public from availing requisite treatment, thereby causing an increase in the spread of COVID.
It was further alleged that as a result of such circulation of the audio recording, fear/alarm was being spread in the public as regards the medical treatment protocol and clinical management of COVID patients.
It was also claimed that the OTV was spreading false information regarding misappropriation of central government funds for the treatment of COVID patients and admission of fake cases just to meet the daily targets by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other private COVID hospitals.
It was alleged that by creating a trust deficit between the government and the public, the telecast by OTV of the aforementioned audio clip was likely to spread panic and fear and induce the public to commit offences against the State.
Being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner approached the High Court praying to quash the same.
Court’s Observations
After perusing the transcript of the conversation, the Court held that it revealed certain precautions a COVID patient might want to take and the kind of treatment he/she may require. It also highlighted the importance of using masks and taking steps to prevent the spread of the COVID pandemic, it added.
The Court was of the view that the State was unable to point out which precise portion of the conversation had the potential of spreading panic and causing alarm amongst the members of the public.
“Viewed objectively, it cannot be said that the telecasting of the above audio clip would cause unnecessary panic among the public as claimed by the State,” the Court held.
Freedom Of Press & Chilling Effect
The Court underlined that the petitioner is a journalist from a news agency, i.e. OTV which primarily disseminates news. Thus, it reiterated the importance of journalistic freedom and the need to speak truth to power by referring to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India:
“The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.”
The Court was satisfied that the offences under which the FIR was registered were not even prima facie made out against the petitioner and the continuation of such vexatious criminal case against him is likely to have a ‘chilling effect’ on press freedom
“Indeed, the conversation appears to be a casual one not intended to cause panic in the public. It is highly unlikely that this one conversation would somehow induce the public to avoid treatment for Covid thus resulting in the spread of the pandemic and much less still induce the public to commit offences against the State,” it concluded.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the pending criminal proceedings were quashed.
Case Title: Swadheen Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha
Case No.: CRLMC No. 1247 of 2020
Date of Judgment: June 28, 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 71