Court Highlights Balance Between Journalistic Freedom and Criminal Proceedings in Case Involving Publication of Publicly Accessible Information
In a significant move, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed further investigation in an FIR lodged against a journalist and an RTI activist, emphasizing the critical balance between journalistic freedom and the initiation of criminal proceedings. The case, titled Manik Goyal v. State of Punjab, involves allegations against the petitioners for publishing a news story based on publicly available information regarding helicopter flights undertaken during the period when the Chief Minister of Punjab was out of the country.
The petitioners, including law student and RTI activist Manik Goyal and seasoned journalist and editor Maninderjeet Singh, sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 353(1), 353(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They argued that the published narrative was founded on information readily accessible to the public, challenging the grounds of criminal liability based solely on offense caused to a public official.
Presiding Judge Vinod S. Bhardwaj underscored the importance of fair criticism and legitimate reporting in a democracy, asserting that such freedoms are essential pillars of public discourse and education. The judgment referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions, reiterating that freedom of speech and expression, including the press's role in reporting and spreading awareness, is foundational to democratic functioning.
The State, however, defended the FIR, contending that the published material was inflammatory and had the potential to disturb public tranquility. The State counsel argued for continued investigation, citing the nascent stage of the FIR and the need to examine additional material that could substantiate the alleged offenses.
The court acknowledged the significance of journalistic ethics and the need for accurate, impartial reporting. However, it highlighted that the continuation of criminal proceedings, without clear prima facie evidence, could unjustly prejudice the rights of the accused. Until the next hearing, the court has stayed further investigation, awaiting additional submissions from the State.
This case brings to the fore the ongoing dialogue between state mechanisms and the media's role in scrutinizing public officials, with the court's decision marking a pivotal moment in upholding journalistic freedoms against potential misuse of criminal law to curb legitimate criticism.
Bottom Line:
The court addressed the balance between journalistic freedom of speech and expression and the initiation of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the mere offense caused to a public official cannot be the sole basis for criminal liability.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 353(1), 353(2), 61(2)
Manik Goyal v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841980
