Justice C.S. Dias referred to Sections 499 [Defamation], 501 [Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory] and 502 [Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter] of the Indian Penal Code, and observed:

“The distinction between a report of an official proceeding and an independent defamatory assertion is crucial. A journalist does not become criminally liable for defamation because the publication of an official action has caused reputational harm to a litigant. What the aforesaid Sections penalise is not truthful reporting as such, but a culpable defamatory imputation of the kind contemplated by the provision…An adverse publication, or one which causes embarrassment to the person concerned, does not by itself constitute criminal defamation.”

The Court noted that the rationale behind Fourth Exception to Section 499, which mentions that substantially true report of the proceedings of a court is not defamation, can be made applicable in cases of substantially true reporting of official proceedings also.

“If the law recognises that a substantially true report of a proceeding before a Court of Justice does not constitute defamation, there is still less justification for treating the mere reporting of the fact that a competent statutory authority registered a crime and arrested the accused, as a defamatory imputation, provided the publication substantially reflects the official record and is not embellished by an independent or malicious imputation. The distinction is material: the protection does not arise merely because the information originated from the police; it arises because the publication is a report of an official act, substantially founded on the record, and unaccompanied by the culpable mental element,” it added.

The Court was considering a plea filed by the editors and a reporter of Malayala Manorma newspaper seeking to quash a complaint accusing them of defamation. The allegation in the complaint preferred by the party respondent was that petitioners published a false news with his name and photograph to intentionally defame him and his reputation due to the previous enmity of the reporter.

As per the complaint, it was reported that the party respondent was apprehended with 3 litres of IMFL that he intended to sell to youth and guest workers based on telephone orders. However, the official records disclosed only seizure of 2.5 litres, and therefore, the news was false, it is alleged.

The petitioners submitted that the news item was a correct report of the arrest and official action of the Excise officials. It was pointed out that the news report was published the day after the crime was registered, and that there is no defamatory imputation.

The party respondent/complaint pointed out that he was subsequently acquitted in the crime and the publication of the news with his name and details caused harm to his reputation in society. He prayed for a dismissal of the plea saying that there are disputed questions of facts, which has to be decided in a trial.

After hearing the parties, the Court adverted to the relevant provisions and noted that the law does not penalize every publication which may adversely affect reputation. It was of the view that the rationale behind the exception given to substantially truthful reporting of court proceedings is relevant in case of incidental proceedings, like registration of a crime by the police or other statutory authorities as well as the consequential arrest of the accused by the investigating authority.

“The Fourth Exception cannot be mechanically extended to police proceedings; its express language is confined to proceedings of a Court of Justice. Nevertheless, its underlying rationale—that the substantially true reporting of an official proceeding, without an independent defamatory imputation or culpable intent, should not ordinarily be converted into criminal defamation—cannot be ignored while examining whether the essential ingredients of Section 499 are disclosed,” the Court clarified.

The relevant aspect is the existence of criminal intent or mens rea, and not whether the reporting offended or caused unpleasantness to someone, the Court opined.

Looking at the facts of the case, the Court found that the news report was founded upon the occurrence report. It added that even if there were some factual errors, there was nothing to show that these were deliberately fabricated with an intent to defame.

Thus, the Court invoked its inherent powers and quashed the criminal complaint as well as all further proceedings initiated based on the same.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 3558 of 2024

Case Title: Mammen Mathew and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 448

Counsel for the petitioners: Millu Dandapani

Counsel for the respondents: Jasmine V.H. - Sr. Public prosecutor, B.K. Gopalakrishnan, Krishnakumar S., Roshith Roshan

Click to Read/Download Judgment