‘Mere Reporting of Complaint Not Defamation’: Kerala HC

Post By 24law
February 11, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has ruled that merely reporting the particulars of a complaint does not constitute defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as such reporting does not imply that the allegations are true and correct. The decision was rendered by Justice G. Girish while quashing the defamation proceedings against Malayala Manorama Chief Editor Mammen Mathew and Publisher Jacob Mathew. The court observed, "The mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned."

Background of the Case

The case arose from two news reports published by Malayala Manorama on August 10 and 11, 2017, regarding allegations against K. Bhaskaran Master, a CPM leader and the complainant in the case. The first report referred to allegations that a senior CPM leader had physically assaulted a Dalit woman party worker and failed to issue receipts for election funds collected from the public. Although the first report did not name Bhaskaran, the second report identified him and mentioned his relationship as the husband of a State Minister.

Bhaskaran filed a complaint alleging that the local reporter of Malayala Manorama (Accused No. 1) had enmity against him due to municipal actions taken against the reporter for illegal subletting of municipal property. He contended that the reporter published false allegations to tarnish his reputation, and that the newspaper’s Chief Editor and Publisher (Accused Nos. 2 & 3) were responsible for the defamatory publication. The accused/petitioners maintained that the reports merely conveyed the existence of a complaint without asserting the truth of its contents. They argued that the complaint did not establish the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 500 IPC, as they had no intention to harm the complainant’s reputation.

Court’s Observations

Examining the legal aspects, the court reiterated the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC:

Making or publishing an imputation concerning a person.
Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation
The said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

The court noted, "There is absolutely no indication in the above reports that the incident mentioned in the above complaint of the lady were found to be true. The mere reporting of the particulars of the aforesaid complaint does not mean that the allegations in the said complaint were depicted as true and correct. In other words, the reports in the said newspaper about the complaint preferred by the lady against the defacto complainant cannot be termed as an act on the part of the persons concerned to publish an imputation which would lower the dignity and reputation of the defacto complainant in the estimation of others." The court further highlighted that Bhaskaran’s claim that the woman had later denied the complaint was not substantiated with any material evidence. Therefore, no liability could be fastened on the petitioners.

Precedents Referred

The court relied on past rulings, including V.S. Achuthanandan v. Kamalamma (2008) and Mammen Mathew v. Radhakrishna M.N. (2007), and held, "It is well-settled that in the absence of the necessary materials to show that there was mala fide intention on the part of the accused to tarnish the image of the defacto complainant, no offence under Section 500 IPC could be made out against the publishers of a newspaper who are arraigned as the accused in that complaint."

In light of these observations, the court quashed the defamation case against the petitioners, terming the criminal proceedings as "an abuse of process of law."