After hearing extensive arguments, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, reserved the judgment.
New Delhi, May 15th, 2024: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Shajan Skariah, the editor and publisher of the Kerala-based news outlet, Marunadan Malayali. Skariah is challenging a Kerala High Court decision that denied him anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of making defamatory and false statements against CPIM MLA PV Sreenijin through a YouTube video.
The bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Kerala Government opposed Skariah’s plea for anticipatory bail, justifying the application of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The state argued that Sreenijin, an MLA who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, was targeted by Skariah due to his vulnerability.
Background
The FIR against Skariah was filed following a complaint by PV Sreenijin, an MLA of the ruling party and the son-in-law of former Chief Justice of India, K. G. Balakrishnan. The Kerala Police invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act, accusing Skariah of making defamatory allegations against the MLA and his father-in-law. Both the Trial Court and the High Court denied Skariah anticipatory bail, but the Supreme Court had previously stayed his arrest in July 2023.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Skariah, argued that the SC/ST Act was not applicable in this case, as the video did not reference the caste of the MLA. He emphasized that the allegations could at most constitute defamation, not an offense under the SC/ST Act.
Luthra contended that the content in question did not meet the criteria of being in “public view” as required under Section 3 of the Act.
Luthra argued that the
video made by Skariah does not mention the caste of the MLA. He questioned whether it is justifiable to infer that the case falls under Section 3(1)(r) and (u) of the SC/ST Act. The Court inquired if publishing a video qualifies as “in any place under public view” as defined in Section 3.
Luthra responded, asserting that, at most, the issue could be one of defamation, not caste-linked humiliation.
READ ALSO: Former State Government Lawyer Accused in Rape Case Granted Bail by Kerala HC
Conversely, Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, appearing for the State of Kerala, argued that Skariah misused his journalistic privilege to target the MLA due to his vulnerable status.
“He claims to be a journalist. He has got a YouTube channel with 29 lakh viewers and he has got a Facebook page, he has got an Instagram page and he fixes agenda in Kerala, the way he has viewership in Kerala. This channel is not catering to the intelligentsia of Kerala… Most of the articles are like husband.. wife.. so and so.. and these sort of sleazy items”, Dinesh told the Court.
Dinesh further argued that Skariah had not defended the veracity of his statements, implying a lack of journalistic integrity and an intent to humiliate the MLA publicly.
“He is utilizing his journalistic privileges to publish a news item, which can be either accurate or inaccurate. If the information is false, he should face the legal consequences as per defamation laws. It’s a risk that journalists sometimes face in their profession… When he publishes a journalistic post, presenting it as an article, he should be fully aware of the implications. However, he has not made any such allegations or engaged in a smear campaign against any other MLA in the state.”
“Due to the vulnerability of this individual (PV Sreenijin), who lacks caste or other forms of support, the entire set of accusations is baseless,” he stated. Dinesh further argued that a prima facie case has been established, meeting the criteria for offenses under Sections 3(1)r) and 3(1)(u) of the Act. He further emphasized, “There appears to be a bias against him (the MLA) simply because he is vulnerable.”
High Court’s Previous Ruling
The Kerala High Court, in its order on June 30, 2023, denied Skariah’s anticipatory bail, stating that the allegations were specific and aimed at humiliating the MLA due to his Scheduled Caste status. The High Court noted that the video contained serious accusations, including murder, and derogatory insinuations against the MLA and his family, branding his father-in-law as a “Mafia Don.”
In a June 30, 2023, order, Justice VG Arun of the Kerala High Court, while denying anticipatory bail, stated, “At this stage, the court must rely on the allegations in the complaint and the surrounding circumstances. The specific allegation is that the appellant has been insulting and humiliating the second respondent solely because of his Scheduled Caste background. The wanton nature of the allegations and the repeated publication of news items against the second respondent are the attendant circumstances.”
Additionally, in the impugned order, the Court observed that the traditional four W’s of journalism, which were meant to guide journalists in ensuring accurate and comprehensive reporting—‘Who, What, When, and Where’—seem to have been replaced with the D’s of ‘Defame, Denigrate, Damnify, and Destroy’ in videos like the one under consideration.
The High Court criticized the nature of journalism practiced by Skariah, suggesting that it had deviated from traditional journalistic standards and leaned towards defamation and sensationalism.
After hearing extensive arguments, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, reserved the judgment. The Apex Court had previously highlighted the need to scrutinize the High Court’s order more carefully before making a final decision.
The decision in this high-profile case will likely set significant precedents regarding the application of the SC/ST Act in cases involving alleged defamation by journalists.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. The State of Kerala
