Recently, the Kerala High Court ("Court") ruled that media persons, in discussing the contents of a publicly available book, cannot be prosecuted for defamation. The media persons, in conducting such discussions, would be exercising their freedom of speech through engaging in fair comment and criticism. In the case of Prakash & Anr. v. Vandana & Anr.1, the Court quashed the defamation case filed by devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi against two media persons for discussing the book 'Holy Hell' by Gail Tredwell (the "Book") which is based on Mata Amritanandamayi and her Math. The Court ruled that the devotees of Mata Amritanandamayi cannot pursue a claim of defamation against the media persons if they are not taking actions against the author or the publisher of the Book.
Factual Matrix
Mr. Prakash, the executive editor of the Reporter Channel ("2nd Accused") and Mr. Nikesh Kumar, the director and chief editor of the Reporter Channel ("3rd Accused") (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Petitioners") aired an episode of the program 'Big Story' on February 18, 2014 ("Program"), wherein the contents of the Book were discussed. Ms. Vandana ("Respondent"), an ardent devotee of Mata Amritanandamayi, claimed that the statements made during the Program imputed that Mata Amritanandamayi was a source point of sex, black money, gold and narcotics. The Respondent further stated that she was able to conceive a child with the blessings of Mata Amritanandamayi and the statements of Mr. Rishi Kumar ("1st Accused") aired on the Program claimed that the Respondent was impregnated by people residing in the Ashram of Mata Amritanandamayi and not by her husband. These statements, the Respondent claimed, were defamatory remarks against both the Respondent and Mata Amritanandamayi. The Petitioners further defamed the image of Mata Amritanandamayi by stating that the allegations mentioned in the Book were true and that the people of Kerala should be cautioned against the Math of Mata Amritanandamayi. The Respondent further claimed that the Petitioners had edited the Program in such a way so as to defame Mata Amritanandamayi.
Person Aggrieved by the Offence
Since the complaint was filed by the Respondent and not Mata Amritanandamayi herself, the Court had to consider if the Respondent would come within the purview of "some person aggrieved by the offence" under Section 1992 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC").
While considering this issue, the Court examined the language under Section 199 of CrPC and relied upon various precedents interpreting the phrase "some person aggrieved by the offence". The Court opined that, even though the Respondent is not the one who has been defamed, there should be a direct nexus between the imputation made against the defamed person and the Respondent. The Court held that since the Respondent was an ardent devotee of Mata Amritanandamayi, there was enough evidence to show a direct nexus between Mata Amritanandamayi and the Respondent and hence, any defamatory statement made against Mata Amritanandamayi will also include the Respondent.
Defamation
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") deals with the definition and exception of defamation which is reproduced hereinafter: "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person".
While considering the issue of defamation, the Court held that merely because the 1st Accused was allowed to participate in the Program, the Petitioners cannot be held liable for the defamatory views put forward by 1st Accused. While analyzing the discussion between the Petitioners and 1st Accused, the Court held that the same was a fair and honest discussion about the Book. Any steps to prohibit discussions about the contents of the Book would clearly violate the freedom of speech of the Petitioners. The Court opined that the Respondent should have prosecuted everyone who has defamed Mata Amritanandamayi which includes the author and the publisher of the Book and such prosecution should not be against 'pick and choose persons' alone. The Court held that the Book was available in the public domain, and it is the duty of the media to discuss such issues and make the public aware. Mata Amritanandamayi and her devotees are free to prosecute the author and the publisher of the book, and if they are not prosecuting them, it cannot be said that no other person can discuss the contents of the Book. As a result, the prosecution was quashed.
Conclusion
Media is often referred to as the 'forth pillar' of democracy, however, media personnel often find themselves in situations where their freedom of speech and expression are questioned. The ruling of this Court in favor of the Petitioners is truly a landmark judgment for the media industry. The Court rightly rejected the theory of 'pick and choose a person' for initiating defamation proceedings. The judgment will have far-reaching consequences in upholding the rights of media while protecting them against any undue legal repercussion.
Footnotes
1. CRL. MC No. 415 of 2015.
2. Section 199 of the CrPC states that "No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence".
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
