Senior City Advocate Venugopal cites Madras High Court judgement on Freedom of Press

Mysore/Mysuru: The recent Madras High Court judgement on Freedom of Press has brought more strength to print media, said Senior City Advocate Venugopal.

“Individuals and companies cannot file defamation suits against press reporters merely on the basis of minor or insignificant mistakes that may have crept in unintentionally while reporting,” he said.

Venugopal was speaking at the Facebook live media interaction meet organised by Mysuru District Journalists Association (MDJA) on May 11.

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal defamation case filed against Chennai-based investigative journalist Sandhya Ravishankar and her husband Prem Shankar by VV Minerals, a beach sand mining firm. The case was filed against Sandhya Ravishankar for an article published by a national daily on illegal beach sand mining of atomic minerals in Tamil Nadu in 2015.

Criminal defamation case

Sandhya had published a report in the daily accusing the Tamil Nadu Government of allowing a company engaged in sand mining along the seashores in Chennai, for looting public wealth by violation of mining norms. Following the publication of the report, the sand company filed a defamation suit against the lady journalist, her husband, the newspaper editor and other staff. Later, journalist Sandhya Ravishankar moved the Madras High Court seeking dismissal of the case.

Report based on facts

During the course of the hearing, Sandhya strongly defended herself saying that she had written the report based on the facts highlighted in a writ petition filed by an individual in the Madras High Court alleging involvement of a mafia in sand mining along the Arabian Sea shores near Chennai and based her report on Court’s observations. She said that she had also carried the response of the sand company in question and there was nothing wrong in her report.

The sand company, on the other hand, maintained that the report was written with a malafide intention just because the husband of the lady reporter was not given a job in the TV channel run by it and the company had not done anything illegal in sand mining operations.

Court’s observations

The Court, while hearing the case, made pertinent observations about the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the Freedom of Press. “I am clearly of the view that there is no point in merely singing paeans to Freedom of Press, if one cannot go to its rescue when the said right is faced with a serious threat,” Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed. “When Freedom of Press is at stake, higher judiciary is obliged to exercise not only its inherent power but also exert itself a bit. An unused power is a useless tinsel. There is no point in merely saying that a Free Press is the foundation of democracy.”

The Judge said the Court must necessarily examine materials and quash a frivolous case without forcing the accused to undergo the ordeal of trial. “It is a matter of record that criminal defamation proceedings have become a tool of intimidation for corporate bodies and powerful politicians whose pockets are tunnel deep and whose hands are long enough that even media houses with good resources have capitulated,” Justice Swaminathan added and dismissed the defamation case.

Weapon to threaten media

Pointing out that the Madras High Court has clearly said that defamation suit cannot be used as a weapon to threaten media, Venugopal said that journalist associations, based on this order, can exert pressure on the Government to frame laws regarding protection to scribes against such defamation suits. 

“Some wrongful individuals and vested interests are filing defamation suits in order to threaten or tame journalists who are made to unnecessarily run to courts and the time has come to put an end to such actions of stifling or threatening journalists,” Venugopal opined.