Fair And Frank Reporting of Events By Media Cannot Be Curbed Merely Because It May Have An Adverse Impact on the Business Of Some Class of Persons: J&K HC

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Thursday (08th October) quashed an FIR bearing No.26/2018 (registered under Section 505(1)(b) RPC) of Police Station, Kothi Bagh, Srinagar which was lodged against a senior journalist who published a news item in daily Times of India titled "Stone pelters in J&K now target tourists, four women injured".The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar did not find that the contents of FIR and the news report published by the petitioner disclose the commission of an offence under Section 505(1)(b) RPC against the petitioner.Facts of the CaseAssociations of some travel agents had lodged a complaint with SHO, P/S Kothibagh, Srinagar, alleging therein that on 03.04.2018, the petitioner (a senior journalist) had published a news item in daily Times of India titled "Stone pelters in J&K now target tourists, four women injured".As per the complaint, the news item was based on false information and malicious intention with a view to disrupt peaceful tourist season and to create an atmosphere of threat amongst citizens of the Country.The complainants went on to allege that the incident reported in the news item had, in fact, not taken place at all. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.26/2018 for an offence under Section 505(1)(b) of RPC was registered with Police Station, Kothibagh, SrinagarArguments of the PetitionerIt was contended in the petition that though the incident of stone-pelting on tourists was denied by the Police Media Centre but it had, in its media briefing, admitted that two tourists got minor injuries on 1st April when the vehicles in which they were travelling came in the middle of an area where stone pelting was going on.It was further contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any offence against the petitioner and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.The petitioner also contended that he is a renowned and reputed news reporter of a premier and prestigious newspaper of the Country and he had under a bonafide belief and in good faith reported the incident of stone-pelting on tourists, which incident has also been acknowledged by the police, therefore, registration of FIR against him amounts to an abuse of power and an attempt to gag freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner.Legal AnalysisThe petitioner contended that the contents of the FIR taken at their face value do not fulfil the ingredients of an offence under Section 505(1)(b) of RPC and, as such, the FIR is liable to be quashed.In order to test the merits of this argument, the Court perused the provisions contained in Section 505(1)(b) of RPC [which is equivalent to Section 505(1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code].Court remarked that Clause (b) of Section 505 (1) of RPC, on which the prosecution's case was based, is in two parts.The first part of the clause deals with a situation where the accused makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public whereas the second part of that clause is confined to making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public."In both the situations, the fear or alarm must induce a person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity", the Court noted.The Court further observed that the aforesaid provision of the Penal Code further contains an exception to the effect that there will be no offence within the meaning of Section 505 RPC when a person making, publishing or circulating any such a statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such a statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such criminal intent which may fall within the ambit of Section 505 RPC.The Court cited the Judgment of Orissa HC in the case of Kali Charan Mohapatra v. Srinivas Sahu, AIR 1960 Orissa 65, wherein it was held that - unless the contents of a publication amount to incitement to an offence, the person who has published and circulated the same, cannot be held guilty under Section 505 IPC.Importantly, the question that arose for the consideration of the Court was - whether a fearless and frank reporting of events/incidents in a newspaper would merely for the reason that the persons engaged in a particular business feel that their business would get adversely impacted by such news reports, attract Section 505 of Ranbir Panel Code?"The answer to this question has to be in negative because reporting of events which a journalist has bona fide reason to believe to be true, can never be an offence", the Court observed.Further, the Court opined,"Taking a contrary view would be violative of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Fair and frank reporting of events by electronic and print media cannot be curbed merely because...

Fair And Frank Reporting of Events By Media Cannot Be Curbed Merely Because It May Have An Adverse Impact on the Business Of Some Class of Persons: J&K HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags