Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, Printer & Publisher, The Hindu, Kasturi & Sons Limited, Kancheepuram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Law and Company Affairs, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 5129, 31552, 5130, 27764, 27765, 31553, 23679, 32392, 32393, 33291, 23681, 25377, 32394, 25378, 33218, 33290, 4860, 4861, 23680, 25296, 25297 of 2012 & 11624, 11625, 11626, 11627, 11628, 11727, 11728 of 2013 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 21-05-2020
For the Petitioner:P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, M.S. Murali, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, J. Madana Gopal Rao, Central Government Standing Counsel, R2 & R3, S.R. Rajagopalan, AAG assisted by K. Ravi Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 199 - India Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499 – Offence of punishment – FIR - Petitions several newspapers have challenged launching of prosecution of Criminal defamation against them Section IPC by State Government through Public Prosecutor Section In respective cases either Government order sanctioning prosecution is challenged or criminal complaint pending before Sessions Judge is challenged or in some cases both Government order and criminal complaint are challenged - Some of petitioners have also challenged constitutional validity of criminal defamation falling chapter which comprises of Sections - But that issue has now been well settled by Honble Supreme Court in case of Subramanian Swami - Union of India reported in as Supreme Court has said section to be constitutionally valid - Therefore there is no necessity for this Court to give its ruling on constitutionality of criminal defamation – Held, Our nation has always respected the role of media and has highest regard for their independent and truthful reporting - But of late for quite number of years there seems to be some decay happening in every sphere of democracy including Media - Rottenness is not removed sooner than later it will spread like fire causing great peril to our robust Democracy - Our National Motto is which means Truth alone triumphs - Court respect National Anthem National Flag National Emblem etc but court sometimes forget to respect National Motto which is also equally important like others for survival of our democracy - Court confident all media houses will take this humble request from an ordinary citizen in right spirit and carry it forward in best interest of this great nation - Mahatma Gandhi said sole aim of journalism should be service - Newspaper is great power but just as an unchained torrent of water submerges whole countryside and devastates crops even so an uncontrolled pen serves but to destroy - If the control is from without it proves more poisonous than want of control - It can be profitable only when exercised – Petition closed
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No.38 Public (Law and Order -H) Department dated 13th January 2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as the same is an abuse of the process of law and is unconstitutional and illegal as it affects the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression and that of the press and media.)
Common Order
1. These batch of writ petitions raises the following questions for consideration:
a) What is meant by Criminal defamation against the State ? What is the statutory criteria required for launching prosecution for criminal defamation under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C through a Public Prosecutor? Whether the same have been satisfied in the cases that have come up for consideration before this court?
b) Under what circumstances, a Public Prosecutor can launch prosecution for defaming a public servant/constitutional functionary in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his/her public functions under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C.?
c) What are the mandatory pre-requisites to be satisfied by the State before sanctioning prosecution for Criminal defamation through a Public Prosecutor under Section 199(4) Cr.P.C.?
d) What is the Role played by a Public Prosecutor and his duties in a prosecution launched by him under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C.?
e) When can a Sessions Judge take cognizance of a complaint filed by a Public Prosecutor under Section 499 IPC read with Section 199(2) Cr.P.C.?
f) What are the essential facts that are required to be pleaded in a complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 499 IPC read with section 199(2) Cr.P.C. to satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 199(3) Cr.P.C.?
g) Whether the accord of sanction to prosecute under Section 199(4) Cr.P.C can be tested in a writ petition ?
h) Whether the respective articles published which are the subject matter of consideration in these batch of writ petitions are in respect of the conduct of the public servant/constitutional functionary in the discharge of his/her public functions ?
i) What is the extent of freedom of press in India under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ?
2. In these batch of writ petitions, several newspapers have challenged the launching of prosecution of Criminal defamation against them under Section 499 IPC by the State Government through the Public Prosecutor under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. In the respective cases, either the Government order sanctioning the prosecution is challenged or the criminal complaint pending before the Sessions Judge is challenged or in some cases, both the Government order and the criminal complaint are challenged. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of criminal defamation falling under chapter XXI IPC (which comprises of Sections 499 to 502 IPC). But that issue has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramaniam Swamy vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221 as the Supreme Court has held the said section to be constitutionally valid. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to give its ruling on the constitutionality of criminal defamation.
3. This Court now restricts its consideration only to the validity of Government orders sanctioning prosecution through the Public Prosecutor and the consequent complaints pending on the file of the Sessions Court. As the issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by a common order.
4. The details of the writ petitions giving particulars of the alleged defamatory articles, the names of the Public Servant/Constitutional Functionary who is alleged to have been defamed, the date of the publications, the det
