Editors beware, Kerala High Court warns against republishing ‘derogatory’ posts: ‘No shield even if matter already public’
Kerala High Court held that editors may face criminal defamation charges for republishing derogatory social media posts, even if the content is already public.
Kerala High Court news: The Kerala High Court has ruled that editors can face criminal defamation charges for republishing derogatory statements sourced from social media, while refusing to quash proceedings against a magazine that reproduced alleged defamatory remarks against actor-director Mahesh P Nair.
Justice G Girish was hearing a plea by the editors of Vellinakshatram seeking to quash the defamation case against them over republishing a post with alleged derogatory remarks against an actor on their website. The editors claimed that the remarks in question had already reached the public through social media.
The fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain does not absolve the criminal liability of the editors, the court said.
The editors, by quoting the derogatory words from a social media post by the director Baiju Kottarakkara on their website, have committed the act of publishing highly defamatory content, capable of harming the reputation of Mahesh, the court held on March 9.
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.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain does not absolve the criminal liability of the editors, the court said.