HC quashes libel case against scribe, says freedom of press is fundamental right

“When freedom of the 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,” observed Justice GR Swaminathan while quashing the proceedings against journalist Sandhya Ravishankar, her husband and two others for publishing articles on illegal sand mining.

Noting that the article in question was published after the Madras High Court issued notice on a PIL filed over illegal beach sand mining, the judge held: “When the 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.”

Also, pointing out that the very institution of the impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of court and quashing the same alone would secure the ends of justice, Justice Swaminathan held that criminal defamation proceedings would not be attracted if a conduct (publication) was carried out in good faith and on a public question.

“There can always be a margin of error. The permissible width of the margin will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The media can avail this defence whether the complainant is a public official or a private entity. Mere inaccuracies in reporting cannot justify initiation of prosecution,” he added.

Justice Swaminathan also slammed the Tirunelveli lower court for arraigning “the editor” and “Grievances Redressal Officer” based outside its jurisdictional limits, lending further credence to the conclusion that the lower court took cognisance of the matter without applying its mind.

“… an accused in a criminal case can be either an individual or a corporate entity. The accused, if an individual, will have to be named in person with appropriate description. If the accused is not named in person and is merely referred to by designation, the court ought to return the complaint as defective,” the judge pointed out.