“Article published in good faith”: Supreme Court. The newspaper had published an article alleging that the advocate(complainant in this case) had initiated baseless legal actions against a pan masala trader.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently quashed a defamation case brought by a lawyer against the owner of a newspaper. This ruling highlights the delicate balance between individual reputation and the fundamental right to free speech.
The case originated from a February 2013 news article published with the headline:
“Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”
(translated as “Advocate files false case against pan masala trader”).
The lawyer, feeling aggrieved by this publication, initially filed a complaint in a magistrate court. However, his complaint was rejected.
Undeterred, the lawyer appealed the decision, and the case eventually reached the sessions court and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Both these courts upheld the initiation of the defamation proceedings, a decision that the newspaper’s owner subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.
On Monday, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the article in question would be covered under free speech rights:
“The news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”
In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court proceeded to quash the High Court’s ruling and restored the order of the magistrate court, which it deemed to be well-reasoned. The apex court’s judgment emphasized the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court found that the publication in question did not warrant the prosecution of the accused-appellant.
The Supreme Court stated,
“The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused-appellant … We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified.”
This ruling by the Supreme Court is a significant affirmation of the media’s right to freedom of expression. It underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting the press against undue defamation claims that can stifle free speech. The decision also serves as a reminder of the need for a careful and balanced approach in defamation cases, where the rights to reputation and free speech must be judiciously weighed.
The case is a landmark in the ongoing discourse about the limits of free speech and the protection of reputation in India. It highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in navigating cases where these fundamental rights intersect and the importance of maintaining a balance that upholds the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. As India continues to evolve in its understanding and application of these principles, this case will likely be referenced as a significant precedent in the realm of defamation law and media freedom.
READ ORDER-
FOLLOW US ON X(TWITTER) FOR MORE AND BRISK LEGAL UPDATES.
