Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 499, 500, 501, 502 r/w S.120-B — Criminal defamation — Essential ingredients — Mens rea — Absence
For offence of defamation, intention to harm reputation or knowledge/reason to believe that imputation would harm reputation is sine qua non — Complaints did not specify defamatory statements nor establish malice — Publications concerned reporting on public administration, governance and public welfare issues — Mens rea absent — Cognizance unsustainable.
[Paras 42–44, 47]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S.199(2) & (4) — Complaint for defamation on behalf of State — Role and status of Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecutor under S.199(2) is not a mere conduit of executive will — He must independently scrutinize material and satisfy himself that ingredients of S.499 IPC are attracted — Complaints filed by Public Prosecutor appointed for High Court under S.24(1) CrPC before Sessions Courts without special appointment or special reasons — Such complaints not maintainable.
[Paras 29–31, 36–38, 41]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 24, 25-A — Classification of Public Prosecutors — Jurisdictional limits
Statutory scheme draws clear distinction between Public Prosecutor appointed for High Court and those appointed for District/Sessions Courts — High Court Public Prosecutor cannot file and conduct prosecutions before Sessions Courts unless specially appointed with recorded reasons — Impugned Government Orders lacked such special appointment — Jurisdictional defect vitiates cognizance.
[Paras 30–32, 36–38]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 200 & 202 — Mandatory safeguards — Non-compliance
Public Prosecutor filing complaint under S.199(2) must subject himself to examination on oath and scrutiny by Court — Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards undermines constitutional validity of S.199(2) — Cognizance taken without compliance vitiated.
[Paras 35, 38]
Press freedom — Article 19(1)(a) — Criminal defamation — Limits
Criticism of government policies, functioning of public corporations and conduct of public officials is constitutionally protected — Calling a government inefficient or reporting governance failures does not per se amount to defamation — Disapproval, dissent and criticism are not defamation.
[Paras 44–46, 48–50]
State and its instrumentalities — Defamation — Locus
Government and its instrumentalities cannot routinely invoke criminal defamation to silence criticism — Criminal defamation to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases — State expected to act with restraint and tolerance.
[Paras 51–53]
Revisional jurisdiction — Ss. 397, 401 CrPC — Cognizance orders
Orders taking cognizance and issuing process are intermediate orders amenable to revision — Revisional court justified in interfering where cognizance is mechanical, jurisdictionally flawed or unconstitutional.
[Paras 28, 42]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
Four connected Criminal Revision Cases challenged orders of cognizance taken by different Sessions Courts on complaints filed under Sections 499–502 IPC relating to newspaper publications in Andhra Jyothi concerning APSRTC performance, alleged surveillance on judiciary, travel of Chief Secretary, and reportage on State–Centre interactions.
[Paras 2–6, 27]
2. Maintainability of Revisions
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that orders taking cognizance and issuing summons are intermediate orders and revisable under Section 397 CrPC.
[Para 28]
3. Role of Public Prosecutor under Section 199(2) CrPC
The Court emphasized that Section 199(2) is constitutionally sustained only because the Public Prosecutor functions as an independent safeguard, not as a “post office” of the Government. Independent application of mind to materials, exceptions to Section 499 IPC, and bona fides of prosecution is mandatory.
[Paras 29, 33–35, 39–40]
4. Jurisdictional Incompetence of Prosecuting Authority
The complaints were filed by a Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court under Section 24(1) CrPC. In the absence of special appointment or special reasons authorizing him to act before Sessions Courts, the entire prosecution was held jurisdictionally defective.
[Paras 30–32, 36–38, 41]
5. Absence of Mens Rea and Defamatory Imputation
On merits, the Court found that:
Complaints lacked specific defamatory imputations.
No intention or knowledge to harm reputation was pleaded or prima facie shown.
Publications concerned matters of public administration and governance.
Thus, essential ingredients of Section 499 IPC were not satisfied.
[Paras 42–44, 47]
6. Constitutional Balance — Free Speech vs Reputation
Relying on Subramanian Swamy, R. Rajagopal and allied precedents, the Court reiterated that:
Freedom of press is integral to democracy.
Criticism of government functioning, even if harsh, does not amount to criminal defamation.
Criminal law cannot be used to stifle dissent or investigative journalism.
[Paras 44–50]
7. State as Prosecutor — Need for Restraint
The Court underscored that the State must act with maturity and restraint, and criminal defamation should not become a political or administrative tool to silence criticism.
[Paras 52–53]
8. Final Conclusion
The impugned orders of cognizance were held to be legally unsustainable due to:
Lack of jurisdiction,
Non-compliance with statutory safeguards,
Absence of ingredients of defamation.
Continuation of proceedings was held to be an abuse of process.
[Paras 42–43, 52–53]
No comments:
Post a Comment