Press Freedom To Be Protected, Criminal Complaints Can't Be Filed Based On Interpretations Of News Reports : AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against a Senior Journalist and Editor of Sakshi Daily Newspaper, who was charged under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for publication of an article titled “Ummadi Krishnajillalo Arachakam”, which was alleged to be premised on false information having the potential to instigate violent riots and mislead...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed criminal proceedings against a Senior Journalist and Editor of Sakshi Daily Newspaper, who was charged under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for publication of an article titled “Ummadi Krishnajillalo Arachakam”, which was alleged to be premised on false information having the potential to instigate violent riots and mislead the public.
For reference, Section 353(2) penalises anyone who makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or both.
Justice Harinath N., finding no element in the article that could instigate or promote enmity between groups, reiterated that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution not only guarantees freedom of speech and expression but also protects the right of an individual to listen, read and receive speech and article.
The Single Judge further observed,
“Registration of Crime on receipt of a complaint regarding publication of article which neither resulted in promoting enmity between groups nor did it incite any commotion or rights. This Court is of the considered view that the Law is well settled on the Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Freedom of Press has to be protected for ensuring that information from all angels would reach the masses. For every issue there can be a 360° degree dimensional view and as such views from different angles cannot become subjects of criminal complaints. In the event the article is defamatory it is always open for the person so defamed proceed damages by during the extent of defamation which the article allegedly caused.”
Background
Initially, a complaint was filed by one Chirumamilla Krishna (Respondent 2) alleging that the article would result in promoting enmity and inciting riots and commotion between two religious groups or castes. The Criminal Petition was subsequently filed seeking to quash the complaint registered against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 353(2) of BNS.
It was the case of the petitioner that the article was premised on credible information and was published after extensive research. The petitioner submitted that the newspaper article cannot give cause of action for filing a complaint for the sole reason that the article is not in good taste for the people at the helm of affairs in the State. It was alleged that the complaint was silent on which classes or groups were impacted resulting in occurrence of riots, and it was further argued that wild allegations on a newspaper report cannot be made and the same cannot be the basis for registering a case under Section 353(2) of BNS. Lastly, the petitioner affirmed that the article would not promote any feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between religious or retail or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities.
Praying for dismissal of the petition, the State submitted that investigation was in the preliminary stage and the Police was yet to complete the investigation.
The Court relied on the case of Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124], where the Supreme Court had set aside a Government Order issued by the State of Madras— whereby a ban was imposed upon the entry and circulation of a journal. The Court held that the right of circulation of a newspaper cannot be curtailed and interfered with, and such a ban was unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(2).
Allowing the petition, the Single Judge held that registration of crime based on a newspaper article that neither promoted enmity nor incited any commotion between groups was unwarranted. The Court further affirmed that if the article is defamatory, the defamed party was entitled to seek civil remedies for damages.
Case Details:
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8132/2024
Case Title: Veladi Suguna Shekara Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others