'Absence Of Free Press The Absence Of Democracy' : Kerala High Court Sets Aside Bail Condition Restricting Online Media From Airing A News

Shri, K. P. Yohannan also known as Moran Mar Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan reportedly died in a car crash in Texas, U. S on 8^th May, 2024. The Managing Editor of the online news channel alleged that he has got information through his investigative journalism that there was foul play behind the death of the Bishop. He filed complaints before the State Police Chief on these allegations.

Meanwhile, another complaint was filed by another Bishop of Believer's church saying that the Managing Editor has aired false news through his channel by saying that the death of the Bishop was a planned murder. He alleged that the Marketing Executive of the channel had contacted him and had threatened to publish this fake news if he does not give the channel advertisements. It was further alleged that this news has a tendency to create division among the Church members.

The news channel, Managing editor and Marketing executive of the channel was named as accused in the FIR and they were booked under Section 153 (provocation with the intention to cause riot), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 384 (exortion)and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120(o) (causing nuisance through any means of communication) of Kerala Police Act.

The Managing Editor sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court while granting the bail imposed a condition that the channel shall not air any news related to the death of the Bishop until the complaint before the State Police Chief is finally decided. The Managing Editor approached the High Court in the instant case to challenge the bail condition.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to various Supreme Court decisions and held that a bail condition cannot be fanciful, arbitrary or freakish. He further held that the Court cannot pass blanket orders restricting the right of a person to express an opinion as bail condition.

“Directions which are in the nature of blanket orders restricting the right of a person to express an opinion cannot be issued under the guise of imposing conditions while granting bail.”

The Court added that a person is entitled to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court emphasised the importance of independent media in a democracy.

“However much people may hate a free press, its absence leads to curtailment of democratic rights and even liberty. The absence of a free press has been said to be the absence of democracy.”

The Court added that expression or opinions by individual have led to investigation which led to startling revelations.

However, the Court added that the freedom enjoyed by press is not absolute. Restriction can be imposed on it in appropriate circumstances. However, this should not be done by way of a bail condition.

The Court further added that if such an opinion amounts to an offence, the aggrieved party can seek any legal remedy. However, the court added that the probability of such an offence is not a good enough reason to restrict anyone from expressing his opinion or views..

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Helen P. A., Stephanie Sharon, Athul Roy, Indrajith Dileep

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Adv. Sreeja V.

Case No: Crl.M.C. 6319 of 2024

Case Title: Sunil Mathew v The Station House Officer and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 604