Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that there cannot be any prosecution media persons for discussing the contents of a book published and available in the public domain.

The court, presided over by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observation while quashing a defamation case filed against media personnel of the Reporter Channel concerning their broadcast of a show titled Big Story. The program discussed Holy Hell, a book authored by Gail Tredwell, which contained allegations against Mata Amritanandamayi and her ashram.

The petitioners, Prakash, the Executive Editor, and Nikesh Kumar, the Director and Chief Editor of Reporter Channel, were implicated in a defamation complaint filed by Vandana (respondent). According to Vandana, a devoted follower of Mata Amritanandamayi, the program defamed her and the Ashram by airing allegations of illicit activities. The complaint accused Prakash and Kumar of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to their roles in broadcasting and editing the program.

The petitioners argued that Vandana, as the complainant, did not meet the criteria of being "a person aggrieved" as defined under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), rendering the complaint inadmissible. It further contended that even if the allegations were true, no offence under Section 500 IPC was committed because the content discussed was based on a publicly available book, thereby falling within the realm of permissible commentary on public domain materials.

The court observed that the term "some person aggrieved" does not necessarily mean the defamed individual but includes those with a direct nexus to the defamatory content. It held that  Vandana's deep personal connection to Mata Amritanandamayi established her standing as an aggrieved party.

The court, however, was of the opinion that the petitioners could not be held liable under Section 500 IPC based on the complaint. It also found that the complainant had not initiated any legal action against the book’s author or publisher, despite having their details available, which indicated a selective approach to the defamation claim.

“It is the duty of the media persons to discuss such things in the public domain to see that the matter is reached to the people. I make it clear that the Matha Amritanandamayi Math or the devotees of Matha Amritanandamayi are free to prosecute the author of the book and publisher of the book, if they feel that there is any defamation to the Mata Amritanandamayi because of the contents of the book,” the court clarified.

The court further emphasised that the airing of a program based on a book available in the public domain did not constitute defamation, as the discussion was centered on publicly accessible material. It rejected the contention of the respondent stating that, “Petitioners, who are media persons, are discussing a book that is publicly accessible. It is their duty to bring such matters to the public’s attention. If Mata Amritanandamayi Math or its devotees have not pursued legal action against the author or publisher of the book, they cannot validly prosecute media personnel for discussing its contents.”

The Court concluded that prosecuting media personnel who merely discussed the book, while ignoring the primary sources of the alleged defamation, amounted to an unjustified restriction on media freedom. “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 stated.

In light of these considerations, the Court quashed the defamation proceedings against the petitioners.

 

Cause Title: PRAKASH v VANDANA [CRL.MC NO. 415 OF 2015]