Supreme Court Objects To Use Of Adjective "Lottery Mafia" By Malayalam Newspaper Mathrubhumi Against Santiago Martin

"We cannot appreciate the use of the adjective."

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and A.S. Oka were hearing a plea assailing the order of the Sikkim High Court refusing to quash the summons issued by a Gangtok magistrate against the managing editor, the managing director and other senior officials of a Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi in a defamation complaint case filed by Santiago Martin in 2020.

After arguing the matter for sometime, the Counsel for the newspaper apprised the Bench that they are willing to tender an apology and provide a clarification in order to put a quietus to the whole dispute.

Considering the same, the Bench recorded in the order -

"The Counsel for the petitioner states that they will take some time to examine the matter in view of the submissions made by the Ld.Counsel for the respondent to publish something appropriately to resolve the issue."

Senior Advocate, Mr. Aryama Sundaram appearing on behalf of Martin requested the Bench to note in the order that the newspaper ought to tender an apology. He suggested that the same should be a prominent one and on the first page of the newspaper.

However, the Bench was not inclined to categorically issue directions to the newspaper to apologise. It stated -

"We will not force them, they will have to take a call. (Otherwise) tomorrow they will say that the Court told us to apologise."

At the outset, the Counsel for the Managing Editor of the vernacular newspaper informed the Bench that the statement was made by a Minister and the same was merely quoted in the news article. He submitted that pursuantly complaint was filed in Gangtok, Sikkim and Managing Director, Managing Editor and Joint Managing Editor were all roped in. He alleged that the case was deliberately filed in a far flung area in Sikkim.

Justice Kaul enquired, "Who is Santiago Martin?"

The Counsel responded, "He is the gentleman who runs lottery. This gentleman has 23 CBI cases against him."

Justice Kaul was of the view that the usage of the adjective 'Mafia' was not proper.

"You also create problems by using adjectives that are not required to be used. There is nothing wrong with the statement if you don't use 'Mafia'."

The Counsel responded that the newspaper had merely quoted the statement of Kerala Finance Minister D. T. M. Thomas Issac.

Countering his submissions, Mr. Sundaram, who was on caveat argued  -

"In defamation cases when some material is published the publisher also has to be proceeded against, the editor has to be proceeded against. Otherwise in the case of a book, a publisher can say that the author had written it, I had just published it…The editor has to clear an article and only then it is published.

He emphasised that the expression was used prominently and in the headlines of the news article.

"This is their headline. The headline is an editorial headline, there it says 'Lottery Mafia. The paper picks it up as the headline."

Justice Oka noted that the headline seems to quote what the Minister had said.

Mr. Sundaram submitted that his client is a businessman running a business which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) as per the judgments of the Apex Court. He added -

"The problem is north eastern states are running lotteries…Kerala wants to run its own lotteries, but does not like the lotteries run by north-eastern states."

Background

Martin had filed the complaint under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in it alleged that he was aggrieved by the publication of a defamatory statement - "lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala" - made by the former Kerala Finance Minister D. T. M. Thomas Issac.

He accused the publication and its management of conspiring to publish articles in the daily newspaper and its online version with the sole intention of causing damage to his name and reputation. Besides Mathrubhumi company, its Managing Editor, the Managing Director and the Joint Managing Editor have also been made defendants in the private complaint.

The Sikkim High Court had dismissed the petition filed by The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publication Company Limited and others, stating there was no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.The High Court had rejected the argument that the editors could not be proceeded against without the complainant having made out a prima facie case that they had at least personal knowledge about the contents of the item before it was published.

Mathrubhumi had contended that the news item was published by them in a bona fide manner, believing the version of the Minister to be true and was a report in respect of the opinion of a public servant, regarding a public question and public policy and therefore privileged by Section 499 of the IPC.

The matter is next listed on 9th December, 2022.

[Case Title: P.V. Chandran And Ors. v. Santiago Martin And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 11187/2022]