'When Reputation Is Hurt, Man Is Half Dead': Madras HC Tells Press To Be More Cautious While Making Allegations Against Religious Leaders

The Madras High Court has asked the media to be more cautious while making allegations, especially sexual allegations, against religious leaders as the same not only affects the administration of the institutions but will also create a false image against such religious leaders. Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madurai bench pointed out that reputation was an element of personal security that was protected by the constitution. The court also remarked that a man, whose reputation was hurt, was half-dead. Highlighting the importance of untainted reputation, the judge also remarked that it was the purest treasure of life. “Reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Reputation is a natural right. When reputation is hurt, a man is half dead. An honour which is lost or life which is snuffed out cannot be recompensed. Reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. A private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society,” the court said. The court also considered it appropriate to put forward some suggestions to the press in the interest of individual reputation, press freedom and society. The court suggested the press council to frame proper guidelines to publish materials relating to the personal life of an individual after proper verification. The court added that proper verification meant that the materials should be collected with concrete information and from a true source. The court further said that the publisher should publish the information after taking due deliberation, and steps that he would take in his own case. With respect to religious leaders, the court observed that India was a country with multicultural religious people where each religion had religious heads and each had its own reputation. The court added that the religious leaders were taking care of their own people by teaching religious prayer and providing amenities to the followers. Thus, the court said that the media, being the fourth pillar of democracy was expected to take more caution while making allegations against the religious leaders. Background The court was dealing with a plea filed by Mariaselvi, a Pastor of Roman Catholic Thirusabai and the Pastor of Dindigul District. The pastor had filed the criminal revision case against an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, dismissing his application to take appropriate action against the Reporter and Proprietor of Naveena Netrikan weekly magazine for publishing a defamatory and derogatory article against the Pastor alleging him of giving sex torture to a number of sisters and students at a Kodaikanal Guest House. The pastor had submitted that the magazine had intentionally made allegations against him without basic verification and the same amounted to a punishable offence. He added that before making any imputation against any religious people, a journalist must do some enquiry and thereafter make publications. It was also argued that the reporter does not have any immunity and cannot escape by saying that he was not responsible for the publication. He thus sought to set aside the order of the Magistrate. The court observed that by publishing the content as if the pastor had committed sexual torture and illegal sexual activities, the reporter and proprietor of the magazine had committed offences under Sections 294(b), 295A, 298,502, 503 and 504 of the IPC. The court opined that the Magistrate's finding that the reporter and proprietor were not responsible was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court thus set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the jurisdictional police to register appropriate cases against the concerned reporter and proprietor, investigate the matter and file final report before the concerned court within 6 months. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.R.Porkodi Karnan, Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 151 Case Title: S Mariaselvi v AS Mani and Ors Case No: Crl.R.C(MD).No.830 of 2022Click here to read/download the judgment

'When Reputation Is Hurt, Man Is Half Dead': Madras HC Tells Press To Be More Cautious While Making Allegations Against Religious Leaders

Upasana Sajeev

Tags