News Channel Not Criminally Liable For Merely Airing Press Conference Containing 'Defamatory' Words: Kerala High Court Grants Relief To Asianet

Justice C.S. Dias observed:

“A broadcaster covering a press conference cannot ordinarily be presumed to have anticipated what the speaker is going to speak. Unless the complaint specifically attributes the requisite criminal intention or active participation in the publication of the alleged defamatory imputation, the mere act of telecasting a press conference, without anything more, cannot automatically attract criminal liability for defamation.”

The Court added:

“In the absence of specific pleadings disclosing the mens rea, the mere telecast of a press conference conducted by another person, who alone made the impugned allegations, cannot attract criminal liability for defamation. If any defamatory imputation had indeed been made during the course of the press conference, the criminal consequences thereof would, prima facie, enure only against the person who uttered or was responsible for making such imputation.”

The case arose from a private complaint alleging that the petitioners (accused 1 to 3) and others defamed the complainant (2^nd respondent). The petitioners had telecasted a press conference convened by the 4^th accused, in which it was reported that the complainant had cheated the 4^th accused of several crores of rupees. The programme also showed his photographs.

The complainant had further alleged that he was portrayed as an outlaw, who has political influence. He claimed that the broadcast was false and the same tarnished his as well as his family's reputation. He alleged commission of offences under Sections 500, 501 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners then approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. They contended that the ingredients of the offences would not be made out against them as they merely telecast the press conference in the ordinary course of its functions.

They further pointed out that they did not participate in the press conference and also had no control over the statements made. Since they had no prior knowledge as to what would be said by the 4^th accused, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon them, it was argued.

Also, there is lack of motive and intention to harm the reputation of the complainant, who is a complaint stranger to them, the petitioners contended. It was also pointed out that no alleged defamatory imputation was extracted, as mandated by law. The cognizance by the Magistrate was without application of law and would amount to abuse of process of law, they said.

The Court noted that the imputing is specifically made against the 4^th accused, who had a previous business relationship with the complainant/2^nd respondent.

It also took note of the fact that there is no allegation that the petitioners authored or uttered any defamatory words and only general allegation is made out without pointing to any exact words or imputations. This, according to the Court, was not enough for criminal liability.

The Court also examined Section 499 IPC, which defines defamation, and remarked:

“A prosecution under Section 499 of the IPC cannot be sustained merely because a statement is alleged to have affected the complainant's reputation. The complaint must contain specific averments disclosing that the accused made or published the imputation with the intention to harm the complainant's reputation, or at least with the knowledge or reasonable belief that such consequence would ensue.”

The Court further remarked that the standard to be applied to determine whether there is lowering of reputation, is that of an ordinary person, not a hypersensitive one.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that the offence of defamation is not made out against the news channel and its officials for merely telecasting the programme.

Thus, it allowed the plea and quashed the criminal proceedings.

Case No: Crl.MC No. 8901 of 2022

Case Title: M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

Counsel for the petitioners: V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Chitra Johnson, Smitha (Ezhupunna)

Counsel for the respondents: Devadas H. Mallan – Public prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment