Of Media, defamation and legal convention

Basantakumar Wareppa *

High Court complex, Imphal at Chingmeirong in April 2012 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

Media is a powerful tool to check corruption, critique government policies and development programmes. This is why the useful tool has been often described as the 'forth pillar' of the State which in many sense empowers the citizens about activities of the various branches of the government and other institutions meant for the welfare of the public.

Media has an obligation to ensure that general public are aware about the necessary information which has public values. When the media exposes certain information concerning corruption and other public affairs in order to serve public interest, such piece of information published may harm or badly damage the reputation of some corrupt individuals. In such a situation, these individuals who feel that their reputations have been badly damaged usually use defamation suit as good justification for their wrong acts in order ward off dent in their public image.

Defamation as defined under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 states that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation, 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. There may have two grounds to make defamation suit in the way of 'slander' or 'libel'. Slander which generally means insult or malign is the crime of making a false spoken statement damaging a person's reputation. Libel is a false written statement published damaging a person's reputation.

It is prudent to mention that defamation which is an offence, perhaps linked to be few Sections under IPC. However, it may not necessarily invoke the registration of FIR. It means that Police rarely register FIR invoking Section 499 of IPC because there are certain exceptions under this Section which includes imputation of truth which public good requires be making or publishing, public conduct of public servants, conduct of any person touching any public question etc.

Therefore, corrupt politicians usually do not lodge a police case concerning defamation instead, they file defamation suit in the court of law just safe public image caused due to wrong acts. Strict traditional rule of locus standi permits that only a person whose own rights and was in jeopardy is entitled to seek a remedy. However, in some Indian states, some politicians dare to use their wives to make defamation suit so that necessary court be may be exempted. In defamation cases, valuation of court fee is calculated according to the damage claimed.

In Manipur, defamation cases against media houses are almost rare compare to the rest of India. There is a very little case of defamation against media houses in Manipur and even these cases are not readily available as public knowledge. It would be relevant to reproduce two recent cases concerning defamation to make common inference.

In the first case, a national daily published for an alleged corruption case implicating the president of a national party's Manipur state unit. The daily claimed that he had allegedly received "bribe" from some quarters. This news was used as a source by a local daily since the information was already in the public realm. The president however claims that the reports have damaged his reputation and took recourse to filing a defamation suit against the two newspapers.

In the second case, one of the self acclaimed youth icon had made allegations against a minister stating he had sexually harassed two women delegates at a recently held controversial World Youth Submit 2015. Minister filed a criminal defamation case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Imphal West against the youth. Both the cases are pending before the respective courts.

In these two defamation cases, sources of the information were duly quoted. In the first case, the CBI and whosoever involved in the cases are not the parties to the case and no police case is registered against the press coverage. These two media houses were simply dragged to the court on the charges of defamation. In the first case, since the source of the information was duly quoted and therefore court is expected to call the correspondence between president of the political party and others involved to determine the veracity of the news for final arbitration of the case.

Here, it is pertinent to note another case. A bench, comprising Justice Dipak Misra and PC Pant in the Supreme Court of India heard and heard stayed Arvind Kejriwal led Delhi government's circular which directs all the government officials to draw their attention to any media report which maligned either the chief minister or the government so that defamation action could be initiated against those responsible media house.

Once against, knowledgeable circles should note the provisions provided by General Comment No. 34 concerning the Freedom of Expression and Opinion under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee. The comment states that defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that the state party to the ICCPR comply with Freedom of Expression which is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.

All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognised as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties.

It has been observed that state parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal laws should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.

It is impermissible for a state party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously-such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others.