Column| Barb ‘The Wire’

With Amit Malviya deciding to pursue criminal and civil proceedings against 'The Wire' -"the foundation of independent journalism", it seems, it has got itself into trouble again, and this time, it may be too serious. What has been going on of late?

The issue unfurled when The Wire alleged a direct connection between BJP's IT department Head, Amit Malviya, and Meta (Facebook's parent company) deleting "anti-BJP posts" from the social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram. The claim of Malviya's access to the social media platforms was made on the basis of certain documents which 'appeared' and were later found to be forged emails. Ironically, the reports that formed the basis of the claim were withdrawn following an apology. However, with such direct insinuations and imputations, there was little room to escape.

Therefore, the BJP leader decided to pursue criminal and civil proceedings against the Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. He explicitly made it clear through a statement that, "Not only will I be setting the criminal motion but I will also sue them in a civil court seeking damages as they forged documents with a view to malign and tarnish my reputation". Therefore, once the matter goes to the court, the punishment as well as monetary damages will be decided, but only after the offence is established.

Innuendos riddled with malice may fall under the safety net of free speech but a constant intent to purge and hammer them will eventually attract backlash. The current issue vis-a-vis 'The Wire' is a marked example of tall claims without considerable foreground.

For the issue under scrutiny, the ‘journalism platform’, however, sought an apology. The lines read, "In the life of any publication, an occasion may come when it is misinformed. The moral test is whether the publication persists or speaks the truth. We chose the latter when we realised we had been given fraudulent information. " Furthermore, the platform shifted, or rather, reasoned, the blame for the entire game onto an employee. But will vindictive apologies save the day from the offences that are otherwise, in the eyes of the law, committed?

Therefore, the provisions and sections that the act(s) could call into action must be seen by all and dissected for study for future references.

The criminality that the ‘purported act’ attracts

To begin with, the sections under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for forgery are two-pronged: one where a person forges, and the other where a person uses a forged document. The punishment, however, is the same. The definition given under Section 463 of the IPC (hereafter "the Code") enumerates making any false documents or false electronic documents or part of a document with an "intent" 'to cause damage or injury' is forgery. While Section 464 of the Code is an extension to the many ways the act is done dishonestly and fraudulently. And Section 465 provides a punishment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with a fine, or with both. Section 468 is for forgery with the purpose of cheating. Now, this solely depends on the aggrieved and the grievances. Further, one Section that the present case directly hits at is Section 469 of the Code, where the Section says whoever commits forgery' with an intention to harm the reputation of any party knowing the likeliness, then would be liable for term (imprisonment) that may extend to 3 years. Section 468 IPC prescribes a punishment of 7 years and a fine for a person who commits forgery for 'cheating’. Section 471 impinges on the usage of forged documents as genuine, which he knows are forged. The heavy stance and the only nuance in forgery is on "fraudulently or dishonestly".

In addition to forgery, the offence of damage to reputation could be tried under Section 499 of the Code for defamation, which mandates making or publishing any imputation concerning any person as a crime. Such imputations could be either words (either spoken or intended to be read), signs, or visible representations. And Section 500 grants imprisonment for a term that may extend to 2 years, or with a fine, or with both. And Section 501 of the Code places liability on a person who prints or engraves defamatory content.

"...The malintent to discredit The Wire is obvious. "Other than this, we have nothing to say" was supposed to be a self-explanatory statement in the apology issued, but does it really explain anything?

Despite the fact that the writeup was deleted overnight, it becomes extremely relevant to note that this is not the first time that The Wire has gotten into deep juice. It had created a picture of an app called "Tek Fog" earlier this year, which is believed to be ‘a marriage of big tech and dirty politics’. However, even that story now stands retracted!