High Court of Sikkim Dismisses Defamation Quashing Petition by Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited and Others vs. Santiago Martin and Another (High Court of Sikkim)

Crl. M.C. No.06 of 2021

Date: 8th September 2022

Key Takeaways

• The court upheld the validity of the defamation complaint against the petitioners.
• It clarified that the absence of prior government sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for defamation.
• The ruling emphasizes the responsibility of media entities in reporting on public figures and issues.

Issue

Did the High Court have grounds to quash the defamation complaint against the Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company due to the lack of prior sanction from the government?

Facts

• The petitioners, Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited and others, were accused of publishing defamatory statements about Santiago Martin, a public figure.
• The complaint was based on statements made by a former Finance Minister of Kerala, suggesting that “lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala.”
• The petitioners argued that the lower court’s order to take cognizance of the complaint was invalid due to the lack of written consent from the State Government as required under Section 196(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

1. They claimed that the defamation charges were baseless and that the statements were made in good faith for public interest.
2. They argued that the lack of written consent from the State Government invalidated the lower court’s cognizance of the complaint under Section 196(2) of the Cr.P.C.
3. They contended that the statements made were privileged under Section 499 of the IPC, as they pertained to public conduct.

Respondents’ Arguments:

1. Santiago Martin argued that the statements were inherently defamatory and that the petitioners should be held accountable for their publication.
2. The respondents maintained that the absence of government sanction did not prevent the trial for the substantive offences of defamation.

Key Legal Precedents

1. Raghav Bahi vs. The State of Bihar and Another: The court referenced this case to clarify that defamation is punishable with simple imprisonment, and thus, the requirement for government sanction under Section 196(2) does not apply to defamation cases.
2. Jawaharlal Darda and Others vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar and Another: This case was cited to illustrate that accurate reporting of public proceedings can be a defense against defamation claims.
3. Mohd Abdulla Khan vs. Prakash K: The court noted that those involved in the publication of defamatory material can be held liable under Sections 501 and 502 of the IPC.

Judgement

The High Court of Sikkim dismissed the petition filed by the Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company, allowing the defamation proceedings to continue. The court reasoned that the absence of prior sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. did not invalidate the defamation charges, as these charges were not subject to the same requirements. The court emphasized the importance of accountability in media reporting, especially regarding public figures.

FAQs

Q1: What does this ruling mean for the Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company?

A: The ruling means that the defamation case against them will proceed in the lower court, and they will have to defend against the allegations.

Q2: Can the petitioners appeal this decision?

A: Yes, the petitioners may have the option to appeal the High Court’s decision to a higher court.

Q3: What is the significance of the court’s ruling regarding government sanction?

A: The court clarified that government sanction is not required for defamation cases, which could impact how similar cases are handled in the future.

Q4: How does this case affect media reporting on public figures?

A: The ruling reinforces the responsibility of media outlets to ensure accuracy in reporting, especially when it concerns public figures, as they can be held liable for defamation.