Even though Sarala claimed that the particular article was defamatory, the court found no evidence that it intended to harm her reputation.
Published Aug 13, 2024 | 10:26 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 13, 2024 | 10:26 PM
Image of Malayala Manorama
While quashing the defamation case against a daily newspaper in Kerala, Malayala Manorama, the state High Court recently expressed concern over the large number of unwanted cases against media outlets. The Justice presiding over the case also took cognizance of the fact that defamation cases without sufficient materials will ‘infringe the freedom of press and people’s right to know, guaranteed by the Constitution of India,’
Noting that India is a democratic country, Justice Badharudeen said that press freedom and the public’s right to information should coexist. Directing that the recent ruling to be dispatched to all district courts and the High Court Registry, the High Court also observed that there are numerous pending cases in the court, including the suo moto cases that were filed based on various news reports.
Stressing the importance of not invoking defamation proceedings just to stifle accurate news reporting, the Kerala High Court acknowledged that there are certain legal restrictions on press freedom.
Expressing serious concern over the increasing number of unwarranted defamation cases against newspapers and media personnel, even in instances where the news reported is accurate, the judge observed that such false defamation cases infringe on the freedom of the press and the right of the public to be informed, which could lead to serious consequences for democracy.
“Hurdle on freedom of the Press is not democracy and it leads to mobocracy. No doubt, freedom of the Press and the right of people to know the news shall be subject to restrictions imposed by law. If accurate reportage of the news is encircled as defamatory, without having the essentials to constitute the said offence, the same will stand in the way of freedom of the Press,” the Court said.
Even though the petitioner, Sarala claimed that the particular article was defamatory, the court found no evidence that the editor or publisher intended to harm her reputation. Eventually, the High Court annulled the proceedings against the editor and publisher.
The High Court further observed that,, “while taking cognizance for the offence of defamation,s court should ensure that there are sufficient materials to take cognizance, otherwise, the said course of action may lead to dangerous ramifications and the same would infringe the freedom of Press and people’s right to know, guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”
The court then sounded a word of caution to the judicial officers presiding over criminal courts in the District Judiciary. It wanted the concerned “to be more vigilant in future of alleged commission of offence of defamation against news papers and media persons, so as to ensure that, cognizance shall be taken only when the ingredients discussed are made out and such exercise shall not be in a callous and mechanical manner.”
(Edited by Neena with inputs from Dileep V Kumar and Sreelakshmi)
(South First is now on WhatsApp and Telegram)
