'Mere Inaccuracies In Reporting Cannot Justify Initiation Of Prosecution': Madras HC Quashes Criminal Defamation Proceedings Against ET Journalist & Editor [Read Judgment]

"There is something called ethical imperative. It envisions that inherent powers go with implicit duties. Courts often nudge and remind the executive that possession of power is coupled with a duty to exercise the same. Judicial power can be no different. When freedom of press which is a fundamental right is at stake, higher judiciary is obliged to exercise not only its inherent power but also exert itself a bit. An unused power is a useless tinsel. There is no point in merely saying that press is the foundation of democracy." The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the criminal defamation proceedings instituted against the Journalist Sandhya Ravishankar and her husband, also the Editor and Grievances Redressal Officer of the Economic Times, in connection to an article about illegal beach sand mining of atomic minerals along the southern coastline of Tamil Nadu, published in the 2015 issue of the ET Magazine. While doing so, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan made significant observations with regards the role of higher judiciary in "safeguarding the freedom of press". "I am clearly of the view that there is no point in merely singing paeans to freedom of press, if one cannot go to its rescue when the said right is faced with a serious threat," he said while holding that the very institution of the impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of court. The court remarked that when freedom of press which is a fundamental right is at stake, higher judiciary is "obliged" to exercise its inherent powers. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling in State of Madras v. VG Rao, AIR 1952 SC 196, the bench held that courts play the role of "sentinel on the qui vive" to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens. "The sentinel must ever be alert to danger and charge forth when required. The Court can never desert its duty when it comes to protection of fundamental rights. Those observations will apply to the entire higher judiciary," Justice Swaminathan remarked. Background The Petitioners, Sandhya Ravishankar and her husband had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal defamation case filed against them by a sand mining corporation and the consequent summons issued by the Judicial Magistrate,. It was pointed out that the articles in question were published after the Madras High Court issued notice on PIL filed over illegal beach sand mining. The complainant corporation had alleged that the Petitioners herein, by way of the impugned article, made false statements and undermined their reputation in the public eye and caused them irreparable harm. They had also alleged that Ravishankar's husband had earlier applied for employment in a news channel in which the Complainant had substantial stakes, and now, she wrote the article out of hatred and malice and to settle scores with the complainant, for having declined to employ her husband. Findings Article based on a PIL The Court noted that the contents of the impugned article were inspired from a PIL filed before the High Court, alleging illicit mining of beach sand minerals. The same was published only after notices were issued on the PIL, including to the complainant-Respondent. Further it observed that even though the original Petitioner in the case was relieved from the proceedings for lacking in bonafides but, "the PIL did not get terminated or closed". Rather, the court took cognizance of the allegation that illicit sand mining was still going on. In face of this factual matrix, the High Court remarked, "The fact that the Hon'ble Division Bench is actively seized of the matter is more than sufficient to indicate the importance of the issue raised by the third petitioner…" Case falls within Exception 3 The court upheld the Petitioners' argument that their case fell within the third exception to Section 499 of IPC, on criminal defamation. As per the third exception, criminal defamation proceedings would not be attracted if a publication is carried out in good faith and on a public question. Accordingly the court held, "The article penned by the third petitioner raised an issue in which the people at large definitely have an interest. The article has been published only in the wake of the notice issued by the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court. When the Hon'ble First Bench thought it fit to issue notice based on the allegations made by a litigant and when it raised a public question, the media is certainly entitled to carry a story on it. This is something that would on the very face of it fall within Exception No.3 to Section 499 IPC." Mere inaccuracies in reporting cannot justify initiation of prosecution In light of an American ruling in New York Times vs. Sullivan 376 U.S 254, the bench held that "minor errors" in reporting do not call for initiation of criminal proceedings against the media. In...

'Mere Inaccuracies In Reporting Cannot Justify Initiation Of Prosecution': Madras HC Quashes Criminal Defamation Proceedings Against ET Journalist & Editor [Read Judgment]

Akshita Saxena

Tags