Criminal Defamation Requires Mens Rea, Quashes Case Against Malayala Manorama Editors : Kerala HC [Read Order]

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has quashed a criminal defamation complaint against the Chief Editor, Editor and a Reporter of Malayala Manorama newspaper, holding that a news report of an arrest made by the Excise authorities, founded on the official occurrence report, did not disclose the culpable mental element necessary to constitute the offence of defamation.

Justice C.S. Dias was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mammen Mathew, Chief Editor, Philip Mathew, Editor, and Saleesh K.B., Reporter of the newspaper, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 in a private complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva, alleging offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint arose from a news report published a day after the second respondent's arrest by the Paravur Civil Excise Officer on 17th August, 2020, on the allegation that he was found in unlawful possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor concealed beneath the seat of his scooter.

According to the complaint, while the official record disclosed seizure of only 2.5 litres of liquor, the news report stated that the second respondent was apprehended with three litres intended for sale to youth and guest workers and that he was selling liquor on telephonic orders, which he alleged was false and published to defame him owing to the reporter's prior animosity towards him. 

The petitioners contended that the report was a faithful account of an official action and relied on the decisions in Philip Mathew v. P. Jayarajan and Malayalam Communications Ltd. v. K.C. Venugopal to argue that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, while the second respondent, who was later acquitted in the excise case, argued that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact requiring trial and that the Court ought not to conduct a mini-trial under its inherent jurisdiction.

The Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 499, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, extracting the relevant provisions as follows:

“Section 499. Defamation.– Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Fourth Exception: Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.– It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.”

The Court held that Section 499 does not make every publication that may adversely affect reputation an offence, and that the provision requires the requisite intention, knowledge or reason to believe that the publication would harm reputation. While noting that the Fourth Exception, confined by its express language to proceedings of a Court of Justice, could not be mechanically extended to police proceedings, the Court held that its underlying rationale, that substantially true reporting of an official proceeding without an independent defamatory imputation or culpable intent should not ordinarily be converted into criminal defamation, remained relevant to examining whether the essential ingredients of Section 499 were disclosed.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B., the Court reiterated that the essence of defamation lies in publication of an imputation with the requisite intention, knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm reputation, and referred to its own decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Paul Vareed Cheruvathoor for the proposition that criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the factum of publication absent the necessary culpable intention or knowledge. Applying the settled parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reaffirmed in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations in a complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of an offence.

On facts, the Court held that it was undisputed that the second respondent had been arrested in connection with the excise case and remanded to judicial custody, and that the news report was founded upon the occurrence report. It held that even assuming some particulars in the report differed from the official record, the complaint did not allege circumstances sufficient to establish that the petitioners had deliberately fabricated the report with the requisite intention or knowledge to defame the second respondent, and that his subsequent acquittal in the excise case was of little relevance to the question before it. 

The Court observed that a journalist does not become criminally liable for defamation merely because the publication of an official action has caused reputational harm or embarrassment to a litigant, since what the provisions penalise is not truthful reporting as such, but a culpable defamatory imputation of the kind contemplated by the statute.

A journalist does not become criminally liable for defamation because the publication of an official action has caused reputational harm to a litigant. What the aforesaid Sections penalise is not truthful reporting as such, but a culpable defamatory imputation of the kind contemplated by the provision.

Holding that the complaint neither attributed an independent defamatory imputation to the petitioners nor contained the necessary averments to establish mens rea, the Court quashed the complaint in C.C. No. 281 of 2023 and all further proceedings pursuant to it, insofar as they related to the petitioners.

Appearances

For the Petitioners: Sri. Millu Dandapani, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Smt. Jasmine V.H., Senior Public Prosecutor; Sri. B.K. Gopalakrishnan, Shri. Krishnakumar S. and Shri. Roshith Roshan, Advocates.

Case Title : Mammen Mathew and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (Crl.MC No. 3558 of 2024)

[Read Order]