The Delhi High Court emphasized that freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. It highlighted the media’s role in ensuring transparency and holding authorities accountable. The court stressed that restricting press freedom could undermine democratic values. The ruling reinforces the importance of an independent and unrestricted press in a functioning democracy.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court emphasized that freedom of the press is fundamental to a democratic society, requiring a degree of latitude for journalists to exercise their judgment without the fear of excessive legal repercussions.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated,
“It may be observed that the freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and it necessitates a degree of latitude for journalists to exercise their professional judgment without fear of excessive legal reprisal.”
Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Press Freedom | Grants Anticipatory Bail to Journalist
This observation arose during a company’s plea to remove an allegedly defamatory article published by a media firm that operates an online magazine.
The court highlighted that journalistic expression, in the absence of prima facie evidence showing malice, reckless disregard for the truth, or gross negligence in reporting, cannot be held to an exact standard of mathematical precision.
The plaintiffs argued that the article was defamatory and detrimental to their reputation.
However, the court dismissed this claim, noting that the company and its founders approached the court for an injunction over a year after the article’s publication, which undermined their urgency.
The article in question reported on the alleged work culture within the company.
The court concluded,
“From a journalistic point of view, the article does not appear to fall in the category of reckless reporting and is claimed to be source-based, context-specific reporting.”
In its March 24 order, the court stated that granting an injunction against a publication of this nature would disrupt the balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation.
It asserted that such a move would “unjustifiably tilt the scale in favour of the latter, at the cost of the former.”
The judge also noted that in defamation proceedings, the doctrine of substantial truth prevails over minor factual inconsistencies that do not render a publication defamatory, as long as the essence of the article is based on truth.
In India, freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is derived from Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) in the interests of:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Security of the State
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- Public order
- Decency or morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
- Incitement to an offense
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the freedom of the press as an essential part of democracy, ensuring media independence while balancing it with legal restrictions.