Isabella Mariam

The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice G. Girish dismissed a petition filed by the editors of a film-sector publication seeking to quash a criminal defamation complaint against them. The complaint arose from their act of republishing, on their website, highly derogatory statements originally posted against an actor and director in a Facebook group. The Court held that defamation law draws no distinction between an original publication and a subsequent republication of defamatory content, and that prior circulation of such material on another platform does not absolve those who choose to amplify it further.

The petition was filed by accused Nos. 2 to 4 in a criminal case pending  before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the second respondent and issued summons after recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read: State Cannot Evade Compensation Responsibility For Vaccine-Related Deaths During Mass Immunisation Programme, Article 21 Imposes Positive Obligation: Supreme Court

According to the complaint, the complainant had been associated with the film and television industry for several decades as an actor and director and enjoyed a good reputation among the public. A dispute arose between the complainant and the first accused in connection with differing opinions regarding the arrest of a prominent film actor in a rape case involving an actress. The first accused allegedly posted derogatory statements against the complainant in a Facebook group named “People TV Debate Forum.” The petitioners, who were associated with a publication related to the film sector and managed a website, allegedly republished or redisplayed those statements on their website. The complainant alleged that several friends and well-wishers viewed those statements and formed a negative opinion about his character, thereby damaging his reputation.

The petitioners contended that the offence of defamation was not made out. They argued that the statements had already been published on another social media platform and that merely redisplaying such content on their website would not attract criminal liability under Section 500 IPC. They further argued that the contents reproduced on the website were not defamatory in nature.

The Court examined the contention that republishing a statement already available on another platform would not constitute defamation. The Court observed, “Section 499 I.P.C does not make any distinction between a defamatory publication, which is made for the first time, and the redisplay of a defamatory publication, which had already been made in another media.”

It further stated, “If it is shown that the derogatory words about the complainant, which were published by the accused, contained any imputation, which would harm the reputation of the complainant, then the fact that the words so published were already there in the public domain, do not absolve the criminal liability of the accused, who ventured to publish those derogatory words again by redisplaying the publication already made through another media.”

The Court also recorded, “Unless the act of the accused would come under any of the seven exceptions envisaged under Section 499 I.P.C, the accused cannot be absolved of the criminal liability for the publication of the derogatory words for the reason that those words were already published by some other accused through another platform.”

On the argument that the statements were not defamatory, the Court stated, “A perusal of the words attributed to the complainant/second respondent, would prima facie show that those words were of such a nature as to lower the moral and intellectual character of the complainant in the estimation of others.”

The Court recorded that the statements attributed to the complainant included allegations affecting his character and reputation. It stated, “It is not possible to say that the aforesaid words used against the complainant, were not defamatory.”

The Court further noted the effect of the publication on the complainant’s reputation, stating, “The sworn statement of the complainant would reveal that many of his friends and well wishers got a negative impression about the character of the complainant by reading the above derogatory words published in the website of the petitioners.”

Addressing the reliance placed by the petitioners on a Supreme Court decision regarding liability of editorial directors, the Court recorded, “The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is not having any applicability in the present case, since there are specific allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners herein about their act of publishing the derogatory words of the first accused in their website to defame the complainant.”

The Court concluded its reasoning by stating, “Having regard to the above nature of the complaint preferred by the complainant, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the offence under Section 500 I.P.C, is not brought out from the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Also Read:  Arrest Grounds Need Not Be Separately Communicated When Accused Is On Production Warrant, But Relatives Must Be Informed: Kerala High Court

The Court accordingly ordered that “the prayer of the petitioners to quash the complaint, cannot be allowed. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Thoufeek Ahamed, Sri. P.A. Ahammed

For the Respondents: Sri. R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam), Shri. B. Mohanlal, Sri. R. Jayakrishnan, Sri. Prasanth M.P, Sri. Sudheer G, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Vellinakshathram & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:19976

Case Number: Crl.M.C No. 3711 of 2019

Bench: Justice G. Girish