News report on person's arrest not defamation: Kerala HC quashes case against Manorama editor

The Kerala High Court recently held that a news report about a person's arrest does not constitute the offence of criminal defamation merely on the ground that it caused embarrassment to the person arrested [Mammen Mathew & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.]

Justice CS Dias made the observation while quashing a criminal defamation case against the Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama, one of its editors and a reporter who were booked over a news report in the Malayalam news daily.

The Court emphasised that the distinction between a report of an official proceeding such as an arrest and an independent defamatory assertion is crucial to decide a claim of defamation.

The Court noted that when faithful reportage of court proceedings is protected from defamation claims under the Indian Penal Code, there is no ground to justify adding a defamatory intent to a substantially accurate report on the registration of a crime or arrest of an accused.

"The distinction is material: the protection does not arise merely because the information originated from the police; it arises because the publication is a report of an official act, substantially founded on the record, and unaccompanied by the culpable mental element.The essence of the offence, therefore, remains the existence of mens rea. An adverse publication, or one which causes embarrassment to the person concerned, does not by itself constitute criminal defamation," the Court said.

The Court further held that a journalist would not be criminally liable for defamation merely because a report of an official action such as an arrest caused harm to someone's reputation.

"A journalist does not become criminally liable for defamation because the publication of an official action has caused reputational harm to a litigant. What the aforesaid Sections (499, 501, 502 IPC) penalise is not truthful reporting as such, but a culpable defamatory imputation of the kind contemplated by the provision. The prosecution must disclose that the accused made or published a defamatory statement with the intention of harming the reputation or with the knowledge or reason to believe that such harm would result," the Court explained in its order.

The order was passed on a petition filed by the Chief Editor of Malayala Manorama, one of its editors and a reporter seeking to quash a defamation case against them.

The case was registered based on a complaint moved by man whose arrest in an abkari case was the subject matter of a report in the Malayalam news daily.

The news item stated that the complainant was found to be in unlawful possession of 3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). However, the complainant contended that the report was factually erroneous as he was arrested for unlawful possession of only 2.5 litres of IMFL. He also submitted that he was subsequently acquitted in the case.

According to the complainant, by publishing the news report along with his photograph, and projecting him as an offender, the petitioners tarnished his reputation.

The Court noted that the fourth exception to Section 499 (defamation) IPC protects reports of court proceedings.

It said that while the exception cannot be mechanically extended to cover reports of arrests or other police action, its underlying rationale can be taken into account in such cases.

In this case, the Court found that even if some minor details were inaccurate in the news report, there was no material to show that the petitioners deliberately fabricated the report with the intention of defaming the complainant.

"In the present case, the petitioners reported the second respondent's arrest arising from a crime officially registered by the Excise authority. The publication may have caused embarrassment to the second respondent, but such embarrassment cannot give rise to a prosecution for committing the offences under Sections 499, 501 or 502 IPC," the Court said.

Therefore, it quashed the complaint and all consequent judicial proceedings against the petitioners.

The petitioners were represented by advocate Millu Dandapani.

The complainant was represented by BK Gopalakrishnan.

Senior Public Prosecutor Jasmine VH appeared for the State.

[Read Order]