Kerala High Court quashes case against Reporter TV Editors booked for defamation of Mata Amritanandamayi

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the proceedings in a defamation case filed against Reporter TV's director and chief editor Nikesh Kumar and its executive editor Prakash. [Prakash & Anr. v. Vandana & Anr.].The two were accused of having defamed spiritual leader Mata Amritanandamayi by conducting and airing a TV programme where they discussed Holy Hell, a book written by her former disciple, Gail Tredwell.The book is said to be critical of Amritanandamayi as well as her followers and reportedly contains allegations of sexual abuse at her mutt. .Justice PV Kunhikrishnan opined that the media has every right to discuss a published book and that they cannot be silenced by flinging allegations of defamation. "I am of the considered opinion that, when a book is published by an author through a publication agency and the same is in the public domain, it is the duty of the media persons to discuss the same and they cannot be kept mum by filing complaint against them alone alleging defamation, without arraigning the author of the book or the publisher of the book.... Since the book published by Gail Tredwell is in the public domain, and its contents are publicly available, by discussing the contents of the book, the petitioners are essentially engaging in fair comment or criticisms which is part of their freedom of speech," the Court held..The Court made it clear that its judgment in this case would not bar Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt or her followers from pursuing defamation cases against Tredwell, or the book's publisher, Wattle Tree Press.However, prosecuting media persons who merely discussed the book cannot stand, the Court held. "As long as Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees are not prosecuting the author of the book, it cannot be said that no others could speak about the contents of the book and the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi will be defamed if they are discussed. A reading of the contents of the program which is extracted in the complaint, makes it clear that, it is only a fair and honest discussion of the book’s contents. If that is prohibited, it will infringe the freedom of speech available to media," the Court explained. .The judgment was passed on a petition moved by Prakash and Kumar seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them following a defamation complaint filed by one of Amritanandamayi's devotees. The complainant in the case took issue with their Big Story segment aired on February 18, 2022 in which one of the guests, one Rishi Kumar, who is the first accused in the complaint, made serious allegations against Amritanandamayi. Rishi Kumar allegedly claimed that he was in possession of a letter that proves the allegations in the book regarding Amritanandamayi Math being a hub of sex, black money, gold and narcotics.The complainant alleged that Pakash and Nikesh Kumar, by making choice edits in the programme which discussed Tredwell's book in detail, had committed the offence of defamation as under Sections 499 and 500 the Indian Penal Code. .While considering their petitions to quash the defamation case, the Court observed that the complaint against Rishi Kumar would not be considered. It further said that the petitioners can't be implicated in a defamation case just because they allowed him to participate in their programme.The Court then went through the contents of the book. It noted that the original book was published in 2013 and its Malayalam translation titled Vishuddha Narakam was published in 2014. The books have since been in the market and can be easily purchased online. As such, no case of defamation can stand against the petitioners who merely aired a programme with a discussion on the book, the Court said. It, therefore, quashed the proceedings against Prakash and Nikesh Kumar. However, before concluding its judgment, the Court expressed its surprise that even though there are serious allegations against Amritanandamayi, her mutt and her devotees, the complainant had chosen not to pursue any criminal case against its author or publisher. "After going through the contents of the book which is made available by the counsel for the petitioners, I am surprised, as to why the author and publishers of the book are not prosecuted in this case, if the 1st respondent (complainant) who claims to be a devotee of Amritanandamayi, feel that there is defamation to her. The stance of the complainant seems like the author and publisher of the book (the book is in the public domain) can say anything, and they are free from prosecution, but nobody should speak about the contents of the book, which cannot be accepted," the Court said. To put it in context, the Court referred to the famous dialogue from the Malayalam movie Sandesham, "പോളണ്ടിനെ പറ്റി നീഒരക്ഷരം മിണ്ടരുത്" (Don't speak a word about Poland), where one of the characters who is defending communism, gets irate when another character brings up the downfall of communist regime in Poland.The Court wanted to highlight the pick and choose attitude adopted by the complainant in pursuing the case against media which reported about the book but not against the author or the publisher of the book itself, thereby putting a question mark over the entire defamation case. .[Read Judgment]