'Media Entitled To Discuss Publicly Available Book': Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case For Discussing Book On Mata Amritanandamayi

The petitioners, Prakash and MV Nikesh Kumar, the Executive Editor and the Director and Chief Editor of Reporter Channel, were accused of defaming Mata Amritanandamayi and her Ashram by airing a show called 'Big Story,' which was based on Gail Tredwell's book 'Holy Hell.' The book allegedly defamed Mata Amritanandamayi and her Ashram, leading to a complaint being filed against them for offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The complaint was filed in 2014.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted that the book 'Holy Hell' is available on Amazon and other public domains, and it has also been translated into Malayalam. The Court stated that petitioners being media persons cannot be expected to stay mum and not discuss about a book available on the public domain. The Court also observed that if Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees were not taking action against the author or publisher of the book, they could not pursue defamation claims against media personnel for discussing the book, which is available in the public domain.

“I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners in this case who are media persons are only discussing about a book which is available in the public domain and I am also of the considered opinion that, it is the duty of the media persons to discuss such things in the public domain to see that the matter is reached to the people. ………But as long as Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees are not prosecuting the author of the Book, it cannot be said that no others could speak about the contents of the book and the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi will be defamed if they are discussed. A reading of the contents of the program which is extracted in the complaint, makes it clear that, it is only a fair and honest discussion of the book's contents. If that is prohibited, it will infringe the freedom of speech available to media”.

Background Facts

The complaint was filed by the respondent, a devoted follower of Mata Amritanandamayi. The complainant alleged that the petitioners defamed Mata Amritanandamayi and her Ashram.

The petitioners submitted that Gail Tredwell's book was available in the public domain and thus discussion of a book available in the public domain will not attract the offence of defamation. It was also stated that the complainant was not 'some person aggrieved by the offence' as per Section 199 of CrPC. Sec. 199 CrPC states that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence of defamation covered under Chapter 21 of IPC except upon a complaint made by 'some person aggrieved by the offence'.

Court Findings

The Court referred to various Apex Court decisions to consider the meaning of the term 'some person aggrieved' and observed that the aggrieved person need not be the defamed person but there should be a direct nexus between the imputation and the complainant.

“Therefore, it cannot be said that if any defamatory statement is made by the accused against Mata Amritanandamayi, the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi will not come within the purview of “some person aggrieved”. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that, the 1st respondent will definitely come within the purview of 'some person aggrieved' mentioned in Sec. 199 CrPC”, stated the Court.

The Court found that the show broadcasted by the petitioners discussed a book published by Gail Tredwell about Mata Amritanandamayi and the first accused participated in the discussion. The Court stated that petitioners being media persons cannot be made liable for airing a show containing the views of the first accused about Gail Tredwell's book that is available in the public domain.

The Court further observed that the complainant had not appeared before the court to defend her case. The Court also noted that the complainant has not filed a defamation complaint against the author or publisher of the book. It thus stated that a defamation case cannot be against 'pick and choose persons' alone.

“Admittedly, the 1st respondent is not prosecuting the author of the Book 'Holy Hell', even though her full address and all other details are available in the book itself. The 1st respondent also has not initiated any prosecution against the publishers of the books. The 1st respondent is prosecuting the persons who discussed the contents of a book which is available in the public domain. In such a situation, there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioners who are media persons for discussing the contents of a book published by an author whose name and address are also available in the public domain. “

The Court went on to state that it does not know whether Mata Amritanandamayi Math has filed any complaint against the book or not. It noted that the Math or its devotees were free to file a complaint against the author or publisher if they believed the book was defamatory.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate C P Udayabhanu

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503

Case Title: Prakash v Vandana

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 415 OF 2015

Click here to read/download Judgment