Editors beware, Kerala High Court warns against republishing ‘derogatory’ posts: ‘No shield even if matter already public’

Findings 

• The editors contended that redisplaying on the website an objectionable publication which had already been posted on another social media platform will not constitute an offence under Section 500 (punishment for criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This contention cannot be accepted, the Kerala High Court observed. 
• If derogatory words are published by the editors, containing any imputation which harms the reputation of Mahesh, then the fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain does not absolve the criminal liability of the editors.
• Unless the act of the editors comes under any of the seven exceptions envisaged under Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the IPC, the editors cannot be absolved of the criminal liability for the publication of the derogatory words.  

• The facts of the case on which the editors relied are different from the facts of the present case.
• The contention raised by the editors against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution against them cannot be accepted.
• The editors, by quoting the words used by Kottarakkara on their website, have committed the act of publishing those words of highly defamatory content, capable of harming the reputation of Mahesh.
• The sworn statement of Mahesh would reveal that many of his friends and well-wishers got a negative impression about his character by reading the above derogatory words published on the website of the editors.
• It is apparent that the matter which the editors published on their website was highly defamatory to Mahesh.

Editors’ case

• The mere act of redisplaying a post, which Kottarakkara made on another social media platform, will not attract the offence under Section 500 of the  IPC, since the imputation contained in that matter had already reached the public viewer through that platform. 
• It is argued that the contents of the aforesaid matter, which Vellinakshathram redisplayed on its website, cannot be termed as defamatory to Mahesh.
• For the above reasons, the editors sought the involvement of the court to terminate the prosecution proceedings against them.

Background

• Mahesh P Nair has been involved in the film and television sector for the past three decades, as an actor and director, with a strong reputation among the general public.
• There arose a difference of opinion between Mahesh and director Baiju Kottarakkara in connection with the arrest of a prominent film actor over his alleged involvement in the rape of an actress.
• While Mahesh supported the abovementioned actor, Kottarakkara strongly criticised that actor. 
• Due to the rift, Kottarakkara posted statements, alleged to be highly derogatory, against Mahesh in a Facebook collective by the name ‘People TV Debate Forum’, where Mahesh was also a member.
• The above “highly defamatory statements” made by Kottarakkara were redisplayed by Vellinakshathram.

• Many friends and well-wishers of Mahesh saw the statements published on the website and happened to think that Mahesh is a person of deplorable character, who supported an alleged rapist for personal gains. 
• Thus, the publication made by the editors on their website contained an imputation harming the reputation of Mahesh.  
• The magistrate court took the complaint on file, recorded Mahesh’s statement and issued a summons to the accused to appear and face trial for the commission of an offence under IPC Section 500.  
• The editors, on behalf of Vellinakshathram, approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them.