Skip to main content

Inaccurate, Selective Reporting Of Court Proceedings Can Attract Offence Of Defamation

IN M.P. Mansinghka vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal & ors., the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while reporting a Court proceeding, which is yet to be taken to its logical end, no offender can be permitted to publish a report which only refers to a version of the one side and completely omits that defence put up from the other side. The manner in which the reporting of the Court proceeding has been done, it is clear that the purpose is to report the version of the one party which will tarnish the reputation of the other side and such type of selective reporting is permitted to be carried out then the Courts will be undermining the rights of the other party which is to lead life with dignity.

The court made this observation while disposing a plea of a man who had challenged the magistrate court order refusing to issue process against the accused. The complaint before the magistrate court was that newspaper Dainik Pratah Kaal published a news item apparently indicated about the trial against him, and it also reported series of orders passed against him. His photograph was also published in the front page.

The court said: “It give rise to the situation where a frivolous case is filed against a reputed citizen of the country and thereafter the other party selectively mentions about the pleadings made in the Court against such person even though the other party has not been given any opportunity to clarify on the pleadings reported in the news but still the Courts will have to give such reporting the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 499 of IPC. I have no hesitation in concluding that such state of affairs will abridge the right of any individual to live with dignity and reputation in the society and Exception 4 will become a shield for those, who have dented the basic and sacrosanct right of an individual.”

The court also clarified that a report, which substantially deals with contentions of both the parties even though the author and newspaper records its own opinion about the entire controversy, cannot be held to be a punishable behaviour under Section 499 of IPC.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/inaccurate-selective-reporting-court-proceedings-can-attract-offence-defamation-madhya-pradesh-hc-read-order/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more