SC: Balance free speech with responsibility

The bench, while upholding the fundamental right to free speech enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, stressed that this right comes with an inherent duty to publish news and opinions responsibly.

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the critical responsibility of the media in ensuring accuracy and fairness in its reporting, particularly when dealing with sensitive matters that could impact the integrity of individuals or institutions.

The bench, while upholding the fundamental right to free speech enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, stressed that this right comes with an inherent duty to publish news and opinions responsibly. (ANI PHOTO)

While quashing a 2014 criminal defamation case against the editorial director and several journalists of a leading newspaper, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan maintained that the power of the press must be exercised with utmost caution and responsibility.

“The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions with remarkable speed. As aptly stated by Bulwer Lytton, ‘The Pen is mightier than the sword,’” the court observed in its judgment.

“Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring,” it stressed.

According to the bench: “The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc, must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions,” it noted.

By striking down the criminal proceedings in the present case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the protection of press freedom while simultaneously reminding journalists and media houses of their duty to uphold journalistic integrity.

The case originated from a complaint filed in 2014 against Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd (which publishes Times of India and some other publications) and 14 of its editors and correspondents over a series of news reports questioning the authenticity of certain paintings auctioned by Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited. The complainant alleged that these articles tarnished its reputation and led to public suspicion about the legitimacy of its auction.

A trial court in Bengaluru took cognisance of the defamation complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, issuing summons to them. While the Karnataka high court in June 2024 quashed the complaint against the media house, it upheld the proceedings against the individual editors and journalists. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In its verdict, the apex court noted procedural irregularities in the trial court’s handling of the case, particularly its failure to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before summoning the accused, many of whom resided outside its jurisdiction. The bench found that the complaint lacked specific allegations establishing individual responsibility and that the trial court’s decision suffered from “procedural irregularity.”

Additionally, the bench observed that the complainant had filed a single case against multiple accused for news reports published across different newspapers and editions, a move that the court found legally untenable. Given that the auction in question had taken place a decade ago and no evidence was presented to show actual damages suffered by the complainant, the Supreme Court deemed further proceedings unnecessary and quashed the criminal complaint.