The Sikkim high court has upheld prosecution orders issued by a lower court in 2021 in a defamation suit against Kerala-based Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi, saying editors can be prosecuted in such cases.
HT has seen a copy of the order passed by justice Meenakshi Madan Rai on September 8.
The defamation suit was filed in 2020 by Santiago Martin, the founding chairman of Martin Group of Companies and owner of Martin Lottery, against former Kerala finance minister TM Thomas Issac and the editor, the managing director and some senior executives of Mathrubhumi.
Martin alleged that a statement made by Issac, allegedly defaming him, was published in the print and online versions of Mathrubhumi as part of a conspiracy to damage his reputation.
Martin alleged that Issac’s published statement likening him to the lottery mafia was defamatory, and filed a case under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 499 (defamation by words either spoken or intended to be read), 500 (imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both for defamation), 501 (printing or engraving defamatory matter) and 502 (sale of defamatory matter).
In March 2021, the judicial magistrate, East Sikkim, ordered prosecution against the accused at a court in Gangtok.
{{/usCountry}}In March 2021, the judicial magistrate, East Sikkim, ordered prosecution against the accused at a court in Gangtok.
{{/usCountry}}Challenging this order, the Mathrubhumi management and Issac moved the Sikkim high court . On September 8, a single-judge bench of justice Meenakshi Madan Rai upheld the order of the trial court and dismissed the petition. Several defamation cases, earlier heard by the Supreme Court and other courts, were discussed during the hearings that took place before September 8.
“The argument that the editors cannot be prosecuted for publication of the alleged offending article holds no water at this stage in light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdulla Khan (supra) and K. M. Mathew (supra) which have already been discussed and for brevity is not being reiterated,” said the high court order.
Citing old cases, the petitioners challenged application of Section 120B of the IPC in the defamation case, saying action was taken against them without requisite sanction as required under Section 196 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court order said: “The pronouncements above have clearly propounded the position of law inasmuch as even if the charge under Section 120B IPC cannot be entertained by the learned magistrate for want of sanction, the magistrate can certainly proceed with the trial in respect of the allegation of commission of the substantive offences, i.e., Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC.”
The high court also did not offer any relief to the petitioners on exemption from personal appearance before the trial court.
“So far as the prayer for exemption of personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial court or to appear via video conferencing is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere in the jurisdiction of the learned trial court on this aspect, as the learned trial court is well within its jurisdiction to exercise its discretion as per the circumstances that arise at the relevant point in time,” justice Rai wrote in her order.