‘State is like parent’: Why Andhra Pradesh High Court slammed ‘impulsive’ defamation cases against local publication

The court added that in today’s social media era, where criticism and harsh commentary are rampant, indiscriminate use of defamation law would overwhelm courts with vindictive cases, often driven by political motives. Such an approach would contradict the legislative intent, which was never to enable the misuse of the law for settling scores.

While dismissing the defamation cases, the high court also slammed the trial court and said, “It did not reflect that they had applied their mind to the facts of the case and the law reflected thereto. Without the examination of the complainant, the trial court took cognisance of the alleged offences.”

“Initiating criminal proceedings against media houses and their directors for fair, factual, and good-faith reporting on matters of public importance, under the pretext of protecting the ‘reputation’ of the state or its instrumentalities, creates an impermissible chilling effect on free speech,” the court observed.

Case

The case arose from the plea filed by the media house and its leadership against the 2023 session court’s order to take cognisance of the criminal defamation cases on their news reports published between 2020 and 2023.

These reports included the alleged decline of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), claims of surveillance on the judiciary, and a controversial report regarding a meeting between the prime minister and the former chief minister of the state.

The petitioner filed the revision petition and contested the session court’s decision, and sought to set aside the session court’s order and quash all further proceedings in the case.

Key findings

• Individuals and identifiable institutions can seek remedies under defamation law; the government cannot be defamed unless specific officials or departments are targeted with false and malicious imputations.
• Media entities, as custodians of public discourse, are empowered to critique governance, expose inefficiencies, and question authority. Their rights are constitutionally protected, but not absolute.
• In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecutions constitute a direct infringement on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The right to comment on and criticize government policies, the functioning of public corporations like APSRTC, and the conduct of public officials is a vital component of democratic discourse, subject only to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• The failure to adhere to statutory procedures and the mechanical approach to taking cognisance violate the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which guarantees a fair, just, and reasonable process in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Desicion

The court said that the complainant has relied solely on clippings of the alleged news reports without producing the complete newspaper edition of that day that contains the statutory details of the printer, publisher, and place of printing as required under Section 3 (particulars to be printed on books and papers) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 2023.

“In the absence of full editions carrying these mandatory declarations and imprints, no statutory presumption can be drawn regarding the identity of the editor, printer, or publisher, and criminal liability cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Consequently, cognizance based on such incomplete and defective material is unsustainable,” the court added.

The court held that the session court’s order for taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the petitioners is unsustainable, materially irregular, suffering from flagrant procedural violations, and a miscarriage of justice.

“Hence, these orders are liable to be interfered with and set aside,” the court ruled.