Fourth estate is not expected to shy away from matters of public importance: Kerala High Court nixes defamation case against Malayala Manorama

The Kerala High Court recently made pertinent remarks on the freedom of press vis-à-vis the offence of criminal defamation while quashing a defamation case against the Malayala Manorama. (Philip Mathew and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.) .The Bench of Justice P Somarajan emphasized that it was the duty of the press to publish all news and comment on the same to enlighten society. .Such commentary, the Judge went on to highlight, was "squarely under the first exception attached to Section 499 IPC when done bonafide in "public interest". The First Exception to Section 499 of the Code makes "an imputation of truth for public good" a defence to criminal defamation..He added,."The fourth estate is not expected to shy away from the matters governing public importance, but it is their solemn duty to serve the society with the news item with its pros and cons so as to bring the society more functional and vigil."Kerala High Court.Even if material published was sometimes contemptuous, it could not attract Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court additionally stated. .Only if the material is published without good faith on a matter not concerning public interest or public good would the offence be attracted, the Judge went on to declare. ."The first proviso to Section 499 IPC has got a wide canvass in a democratic system and right to publish a news item with its necessary comments and views though sometimes contemptuous, cannot be defeated unless malafides writ large on its face and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The contemptuous nature of news item, if it is connected with imputation of truth, which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence and there shall not be any misunderstanding with respect to the requirement to attract Section 499 IPC with the first exception therein.".The case arose out of a defamation complaint registered against Malayalam daily Malayala Manorama in 2016. The daily had carried a story on a Vigilance Inquiry Report against the complainant and others. Their grievance was that they were described as accused persons even before a case was registered against them. .Pursuant to the complaint of defamation, cognizance was taken by a Magistrate and process issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..Aggrieved, Manorama's Managing Editor, Chief Editor, and its Printer and Publisher moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. .When finally disposing of the matter, Justice Somarajan observed that the news report "was a true version of the report submitted by the Vigilance against the defacto complainant and three others.".Finding the defamation complaint to have been intended to defeat the solemn function vested with the fourth estate, the Judge deemed it an abuse of process of law and quashed the same..Senior Advocate KP Dandapani and Advocate Millu Dandapani represented Malayala Manorama. Public Prosecutor MN Maya appeared for the State and Advocate C Unnikrishnan appeared for the complainant..Read the Order: