'Editors Can Be Prosecuted': Sikkim High Court Refuses To Quash Summons In Defamation Case Against Mathrubhumi Management

The Sikkim High Court recently refused 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.

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. 

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, while dismissing the petition filed by The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publication Company Limited and others, said no grounds whatsoever arise for intereference with the order passed by the trial court.

Referring to a catena of judgements passed by the apex court, the bench in the order dated September 8 said:

"On the bedrock of the principles enunciated in the above ratiocination, the bona fides of the Petitioners in publishing the alleged defamatory statement, said to be in good faith and for serving the public good, are questions of fact which are required to be tested by evidence and decided after the regular trial is held, and cannot be truncated at this stage."

The petitioners had argued that under Section 196 (2) CrPC, no court can take cognisance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy, other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, without sanction of the state government or district magistrate.

However, the court while relying upon various Supreme Court judgements including 'Madan Lal vs. The State of Punjab' said:

"The pronouncements above have clearly propounded the position of law inasmuch as even if the Charge under Section 120B IPC cannot be entertained by the Learned Magistrate for want of sanction, the Magistrate can certainly proceed with the trial in respect of the allegation of commission of the substantive offences, i.e., Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC".

The court also 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. It said:

"The argument that all the Editors cannot be prosecuted for publication of the alleged offending article holds no water at this stage in light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdulla Khan (supra) and K. M. Mathew (supra) which have already been discussed and for brevity is not being reiterated."

On the question of "foisting mens rea" on the company, the court said it has been held that even a body corporate can be held liable. The court also refused to entertain the prayer for exemption of personal appearance of the petitioners before trial court.

Mathrubhumi through Senior Advocate Anmole Prasad earlier contended that the news item was published by them bona fidely, 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.