ALLEGATIONS BY JOURNALISTS RUINING REPUTATION OF CITIZENS

-

ALLEGATIONS BY JOURNALISTS RUINING REPUTATION OF CITIZENS

- VERSHA SINGH

BACKGROUND:


Journalists are people who gather, write or distribute news on any current information to public at large. Sometimes they criticize things to an extent that it can actually defame an individual or a group of individuals or any organization. We all have seen the harsh acts performed by the journalists that they do during interviews by asking any sort of questions be it personal or professional. They raise irrelevant topics which in turn leads to controversies and also defame people and then seek for quash of the case. They have not been provided any special privilege by the government to speak or publish whatever they want including defamation of someone's reputation. If the facts stated in the news are relevant and completely true then only it should be printed in a newspaper or broadcasted on the news channels so that no one's reputation is harmed for a false cause.

CURRENT ISSUE:


In a recent judgement, the Bombay High Court observed that the journalists do not have any special privilege or a kind of freedom in comparison to the other members of the society to make allegations which can ruin the reputation of citizens. It was observed by Justice Mangesh S. Patil that they are in no better position than any other person.

The Bombay High Court made this observation while dismissing a petition. The petition was filed by a journalist who was seeking to quash a defamation case related to a news published by them in their newspaper "Lokmat".

The case of defamation was filed by a social worker alleging that his reputation has been ruined after the accused published a news in the Lokmat newspaper saying that the social worker was taken to the police station in relation to an incident regarding attempted human suicide.



The Bombay High Court observed that the publication of such news which has the potential of putting the complaint to disrepute and to lower the social worker's esteem is prima facie sufficient to constitute the act of defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code so the doors cannot be just shut at the threshold.

The bench quashed the case which was filed against the Chairman and the Chief Editor after observing that they had no direct involvement and responsibility in publishing of the news. While for others, the prosecution was to be continued as per the order.


With reference to the judgement in Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K Karanjia AIR 1981 SC 1514, it was observed that journalist do not enjoy special privilege or have greater freedom than the others to make allegations, sufficient enough to lower down the reputation of a citizens. They are in no better position than the other citizens. Truth of an allegation does not permit any justification under first exception unless it is proved to be for the sake of public good.

CONCLUSION:


Any person including the journalists are liable to punishments under the act of defamation defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. In any case where the act is prima facie sufficient to defame someone then the person cannot get himself out of it without being punished for the said cause. A journalist cannot directly defame a person or ruin his/her reputation until and unless the facts are true.

The defence provided in such cases is that if the news published is causing public good then the journalist won't be liable for punishments. And even if it is for public good then also the facts have to be true, proved and relevant. They cannot publish any false statement stating it to be for the benefit of the public.

In order to avoid such cases, the journalists should not publish any criticism without any actual relevance because it not only defames people, but creates a chaos in the society regarding several things.

Comments

Post a Comment