The Nagpur Trial panel of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that the media has the right to report on the registration of first information reports (FIRs) and cases filed with the court judgment.
The defamation action cannot be based on such reports [Vijay Darda & Anr. compared to Ravindra Gupta].
Judge Vinay Joshi emphasized press freedom and the importance of the news media while quashing a defamation case against the owner of a daily newspaper.
“In the current events, it is commonly known that the daily newspaper news related to the court filing, criminal registration, arrest, etc. have at least one place to which the public is entitled,” the court said.
Labeling specific reports on registrations of cases as defamatory would limit reporting of investigations solely to results, thereby disenfranchising the public from knowledge of the facts.
The court emphasized in the 21-page order that the primary function of the press is to provide accurate information and that it would be unfair to allow media outlets to sue the media for publishing truthful information strongly in a democratic environment.
“In other words, the freedom to report truthfully on matters of the public domain is a right that derives from freedom of expression. The court said that defamation of truthful and honest reporting is not healthy for a democratic setting.
Reports by Media regarding FIRs
He added that filing lawsuits against such articles are nothing more than an attempt to stifle journalists and informants by trying to force them to withdraw reports against those who have been accused of wrongdoing. smear.
The Court also emphasized the power of the press to make an impression on people’s minds and therefore the person responsible for publishing anything in the newspaper should be given due care.
On June 20, the court ruled on a criminal complaint filed by Vijay Darda, chairman of Lokmat Group, and its editor Rajendra Darda, challenging the January 2018 order of the Yavatmal District Court bringing launched defamation proceedings against those who filed a complaint of a certain Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta.
Gupta testified that the petitioners on May 20, 2016, published a false and frivolous report in their Marathi newspaper concerning the co-defendant, with the sole purpose of humiliating him, which in result defamed his image in the society.
He added that the report was published without verifying the authenticity of the FIR filed against him and his family.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Nitin Lambat, said his client was not at the scene when the alleged incident occurred and his name was subsequently removed from the indictment.
However, the claimant’s attorney Firdos Mirza claimed that his client was not the editor of the newspaper according to a statement made in the newspaper’s seal under the provisions of the Press Act and Communications 1867 Registered Books (PRB), and thus they are not indirectly liable defamation lawsuits, which the court accepted.
Mirza added that merely publishing the FIRs recording would not constitute defamation as it was not intended to damage the person’s reputation.
The court said: “The publication of news about a rumor or rumor without determining the truth would be fatal to a journalist.
The bench is listening to a petition from Vijay Darda, President, and Rajendra Darda, Editor of Lokmat Media Pvt. Ltd. (applicants) asking the first instance court to drop criminal proceedings against them on a defamation complaint.
Publication involving the recording of crimes against the plaintiff and his family members that the plaintiff alleges is untrue and defamatory because the editors did not fact-check before publication news.
She noted in advance that none of the reports were inaccurate or “correctable”.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaintiffs were not interested in published news and that there was an editor with a different name in the newspaper but not the defendant in the FIR.
Therefore, it considers that the libel that the applicant alleges has not been withheld against the applicant.
“It is the publisher’s responsibility to publish the truth and nothing else. The defamation complaint alleges that the authenticity of the FIRs’ content was not verified.
Editors are not authorized to investigate the matter and ensure the authenticity of the FIR before publishing the news.
The responsibility and liability of the publisher are limited to a limited extent, therefore, the assertion in this regard is unacceptable,” the court said while dismissing criminal charges against him. with the plaintiffs.
Attorneys Firdos Mirza and Nitin Lambat appeared for plaintiff and plaintiff, respectively.
