HC: Public servants can’t misuse defamation law

HC: Public servants can’t misuse defamation law

22/05/2020

Instead they must apply their mind independently before launching prosecution, besides being fair to the court. Listing out the basic qualities expected of a public prosecutor, the judge said that prosecutors must consider themselves as agents of justice, not exhibit blind eagerness to grasp a conviction, conduct a case with utmost fairness and “remember that prosecution does not mean persecution”.

Justice Quddhose said that trial courts should also apply their judicial mind to materials available on record and issue summons to the accused only if they were satisfied that the ingredients required for taking cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint against the State had been made out.

In so far as two proceedings initiated against The Hindu were concerned, the judge held that both of them fell under the category in which, on the face of it, a conclusive inference could be reached that no criminal defamation whatsoever had been made out. The first case was filed with regard to a report titled ‘AIADMK activists attack Nakkheeran office,’ published on January 8, 2012. The judge said and agreed with senior counsel P.S. Raman that it was nothing but a factual news report regarding the attack.

“The role of a newspaper is only to publish news as it had happened. As a political personality/constitutional functionary, the then Chief Minister could have very well refuted those allegations by a counter press statement,” the judge pointed out. Similarly, the second case against the newspaper was with regard to publication of a statement issued in July 2012 by the then Leader of the Opposition Vijayakant accusing the CM of taking a long break from office and running the government through [media] statements. In this case too, “there is no criminal defamation at all,” as the newspaper had only published the statement of the then Leader of the Opposition and had not made any personal imputation against the then CM, the judge held.

He pointed out that the incumbent government had recently withdrawn the defamation proceedings initiated against Mr. Vijayakant, for having issued that statement, though he happened to be the “actual perpetrator” of the alleged crime.

On proceedings against other media houses, the judge said that some of them could be prosecuted by the aggrieved, in their individual capacity, before a Judicial Magistrate since no defamation against the State had been made out.