Karnataka High Court: While deliberating over petitions filed by editors of several news publications, seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 499, 109 and 500 of Penal Code, 1860 initiated against them for publishing objectionable news items terming the advocate fraternity as “goonda”; the Bench of V. Srishananda, J.*, strictly stated that using words like ‘Taliban’; ‘goonda’; ‘pundatike’ are per se intolerable and beyond the scope of guidelines issued by Press Council of India.
Furthermore, the Court stated that print media caters to the needs of the public by publishing important news; however, they also have a social responsibility to maintain peace and tranquillity. The Court also pointed out that reports carried out in the print and electronic media, is strictly required to be in accordance with the guidelines issued by Press Council of India.
Background: The matter revolves around an unfortunate incident in 2012, which occurred within the premises of City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Many persons including public, advocates, police personnel and media persons were injured. In connection to this incident, advocates’ association across Karnataka passed a Resolution whereby which they resolved that journalists against whom cases have been registered under Penal Code, 1860; will not be defended by any advocate.
The matter reached the State Legislature wherein one of the lawmakers termed the afore-stated Resolution to be a “Taliban Mentality”.
The print media while reporting this matter, used unparliamentary language. They even termed the advocates’ fraternity as “goonda mentality”. Some of the publications even went on to repeat “Taliban Mentality’ comment passed by a Member of Legislative Assembly while discussing the Resolution.
Afore-stated actions by the print media compelled one of the advocates to file a private complaint against persons who published such news items. The matter was taken into cognizance by the Magistrate and is pending. Meanwhile the petitioners filed the instant petitions seeking quashment of proceedings.
Contentions: Counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no intention to malign advocate fraternity at large; and some of the reporters who covered the incident, and its aftermath might have reported in excess beyond the reporting guidelines. It was further stated that the reporters have expressed their remorse and tendered unconditional apology for the usage of afore-stated objectionable words. The petitioners also assured that they will be careful in future while publishing such news.
Court’s Assessment: The Court perused the facts of the case and affidavits presented by the petitioners and also took noted of the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioners and their assurances of not repeating the act in future.
The Court also noted that the matter is of 2012 and pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of the apology tendered, the Court was of the opinion that pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners can be brought to a logical end.
The Court also expressed its shock as to how these news items escaped the scrutiny of the Chief Editor of these publications. However, since the offending news items were published, it can be presupposed that the Chief Editor of the news publications had endorsed them.
The Court strictly observed that media is the fourth pillar of a thriving democracy, therefore media should work and act using caution because publication of the news item has wide implication on the society at large.
The Court stated that there are many who still believe a published news item to be gospel of truth without even looking for corroboration and verification. The media enjoys immense confidence of the Indian people; therefore, it becomes very important for media persons to show utmost restraint and refrain from using defamatory words while reporting news. The Court further opined that it is expected that Chief Editors and ones who manage print and electronic media, give their utmost attention towards achieving this object.
The Court stated that media is expected to carry news item in a most decent manner. The Court observed that it is high time that Courts must bestow its supervisory jurisdiction on the print and electronic media as when occasion demands.
The Court expressed its hope that print and electronic media in general and the petitioners in particular, will be careful and exercise necessary restraint while publishing news items in future.
Finding that the case is pending for more than 10 years, petitioners have expressed their remorse, the Court deemed it fit to quash the criminal proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
[Lok Shikshan Trust v. Davalsab, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 45, decided on 24-07-2023]
*Order by Justice V. Srishananda
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioners- K.L Patil, Adv;
For respondent- Sadiq N. Goodwala, Adv.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
