The Kerala High Court quashed defamation proceedings against the Managing Director of Rashtra Deepika, stating he has no direct role in selecting news items, which is the responsibility of the Chief Editor. The court ruled that criminal prosecution against the MD would not succeed, highlighting the ordinary roles in news selection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Kerala High Court has stated that the Managing Director (MD) of a newspaper does not play a direct role in selecting news items for publication. This ruling was issued while the Court quashed defamation proceedings against the Managing Director of the regional newspaper Rashtra Deepika. Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that the responsibility for selecting news items typically rests with the Chief Editor or the Editor, rather than the MD.
“It can be stated that the Chief Editor or Editor is typically responsible for selecting news items, while the Managing Director does not have a direct role in this process. Consequently, a criminal prosecution alleging defamation against the Managing Director is unlikely to succeed, at least on the surface.”
– the Court stated in its August 6th order.
The case stems from a complaint filed in 2018 against two senior officials of the newspaper, Rashtra Deepika: the Managing Director and the Chief Editor. The complaint accused the officials of defamation, following the publication of an article in the Rashtra Deepika Evening Daily, which alleged that the complainant had misappropriated funds belonging to the Residence Co-operative Society in Kunnathur for personal use in constructing a house. This publication led the complainant to file a case under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging defamation.
Both the MD and the Chief Editor of the newspaper challenged the defamation complaint and the subsequent trial court proceedings. They argued that the charges against them were not valid, primarily focusing on the role of the MD in the matter.
During the proceedings, the MD contended that he was not directly involved in the day-to-day editorial decisions, including the selection or approval of news items published in the newspaper. He asserted that his role as MD is largely managerial and does not extend to editorial responsibilities. Therefore, he argued, he should not be held accountable for the alleged defamatory content published in the newspaper.
The Kerala High Court agreed with the MD’s argument, emphasizing that the responsibility for selecting news items rests primarily with the Chief Editor or the Editor. The Court stated:
“It can be asserted that the Chief Editor or Editor is generally responsible for selecting news items, while the Managing Director does not have a direct role in this selection process.”
In light of this, the Court quashed the defamation proceedings against the MD, noting that criminal prosecution against him would not hold up under scrutiny.
“Consequently, all further proceedings against the 1st accused/petitioner in C.C. No. 128/2018 at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta, are hereby quashed.”
– the Court added.
While the Court quashed the defamation case against the MD, it allowed the proceedings to continue against the second accused in the case — the Chief Editor, who had since vacated the position. The Chief Editor’s role in overseeing the editorial process, including the publication of news items, was deemed sufficient grounds for the defamation trial to proceed.
The court’s order stated-
“while allowing to proceed against the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner herein, as per law.”
The petitioners in the case, the Managing Director and Chief Editor of Rashtra Deepika, were represented by a team of advocates, including Jomy George, R Padmaraj, M J Benny, Chitra N Das, Rishab S, and Rona Ann Siby.
On the opposing side, Advocate MR Sarin appeared for the complainant, arguing that the defamation charges should apply to both the MD and the Chief Editor, given their leadership positions within the newspaper.
Additionally, Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth represented the State of Kerala in the case, ensuring the state’s legal interests were presented during the proceedings.
Notably, Advocate Firoz KM also appeared as amicus curiae, providing legal expertise to assist the Court in understanding the nuances of media-related defamation cases and the roles of various individuals within a news organization.
