Madras High Court today stayed all proceedings in a defamation case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against an English daily and held that those holding office in government and responsible for public administration must be open to criticism.
"The press has got a solemn duty to expose misdeeds, corruption, mismanagement of public funds and maladministration... The press by publishing a news item or expressing its views on a particular matter would only be discharging its duty to the government and governed.
"Criticism made in a bonafide manner must be accepted. It would help to correct the mistakes," Justice K K Sasidharan said.
The judge stated this while hearing two applications by the Printer, Publisher, Editor and reporter of a daily, seeking to stay proceedings and dispense with personal appearance.
Justice Sasidharan said the Principal Sessions Judge's order on a complaint by City Public Prosecutor did not contain prima facie material to his satisfaction.
As taking cognizance is part of judicial process, the PSJ should have recorded reasons which made him take cognizance of the complaint, he said and stayed all further proceedings and adjourned further hearing to December 2.
Dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused, the judge noted the petitioners were made to appear on all hearing dates without giving them time to do work as journalists. This would put them to irreparable loss and hardship, he said.
The daily had carried a report in its March 28 edition this year on 'Contract goes to co floated on the same day as Govt.Tender' and 'Ticketing deal: Complaints say bid winners were blacklisted.'
CPP M L Jegan had filed a criminal defamation suit on behalf of government against the daily, contending the items were derogatory, published with an intention to malign the reputation of state Transport Minister V Senthil Balaji.
The judge observed the paper had taken a specific stand based on material available that the successful bidder was headed by a company incorporated on the day of issuance of the tender notification.
Noting that the report contained details on ineligibility of the lead consortium partner even to take part in the tender process, he said there was only a general denial on the falsity of the report, that it was derogatory and made to malign the Minister and no reference to him in the news item.
The judge said if complaints of this nature against the press are entertained in a routine manner without trying to distinguish between those defamatory to government, made with an intention to defame government in the eye of the public and other cases conveying facts relating a particular event, the press would not be in a position to publish news items or to express its views freely.
