scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciary‘This is yellow journalism’: SC refuses relief to journalist convicted for defaming...

‘This is yellow journalism’: SC refuses relief to journalist convicted for defaming lawyer

SC upholds Karnataka HC and trial court findings, says HC took lenient approach in sentencing the journalist to just one month in jail as he ‘deserved more than that’.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday refused to set aside a month-long prison term handed out to a Karnataka-based journalist for defaming a lawyer 13 years ago.

A bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana upheld the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and a trial court there that convicted Vishwanatha Shetty for writing “defamatory articles” against the advocate and a public notary in a vernacular daily owned and published by him. 

Among other things, Shetty has been censured by the courts for the language he used — including a reference to the lawyer as “third class”.

“This is the kind of language you use and claim you are a journalist?” the bench, also comprising Justices Suryakant and Hima Kohli, observed, while summarily dismissing Shetty’s appeal against the Karnataka High Court order. “This is yellow journalism,” it said.

The bench was also of the opinion that the high court had taken a lenient approach in sentencing Shetty to just a month in jail. “They were very liberal… He deserves more than that,” CJI Ramana said.

In March this year, the Karnataka High Court had upheld a 2013 decision of a trial court in the state’s Koppa district convicting Shetty. 

It, however, modified the lower court order, reducing Shetty’s jail term to a month from a year. The court also enhanced the fine imposed on him to Rs 50,000 from Rs 6,000. Rs 40,000 from the fine was to be paid to the complainant lawyer.


Also Read: ‘Every journalist entitled to protection’: SC quashes sedition case against Vinod Dua


Wrong facts: Journalist

Shetty’s advocate Sanjay Nuli argued that the high court had erred in convicting his client, as it had based its judgment on “wrong facts”. According to Nuli, the high court noted that Shetty was convicted for a similar offence in the past as well, yet he remained undeterred and continued to publish defamatory articles.

In his appeal, Shetty asserted that he was acquitted in the earlier defamation case. 

Nuli contended that the high court was “influenced” by an “incorrect fact” and had branded Shetty a repeat offender. 

However, the Supreme Court bench remained adamant. “Even if he was not convicted of any offence in the past, we are not in favour of him and that is the point,” it told Nuli, refusing to issue notice on the appeal to the other side.

The case

The civil judge of Koppa had on 21 January 2013 pronounced Shetty guilty of writing a series of defamatory articles against the complainant, who was a lawyer practising in the same area.

In his criminal complaint filed before the court on 23 August 2008, the lawyer alleged that Shetty’s weekly paper was “steeped with baseless and provocative articles to extract money”.

The articles targeting him were intended to undermine his profession and published with an intention to denigrate his reputation, the lawyer claimed. He also took exception to the “objectionable” words used to describe him, apart from complaining that Shetty’s articles accusing him of getting sale deeds related to land belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes registered without government permission were “unfounded and false”.

Shetty had also referred to him as an “advocate of third class” in one of his writings, even though he was not named in the report, the lawyer claimed.

Shetty in turn submitted that he had published articles in good faith and in public interest, which, he argued, was provided under the law. His action, he added, was covered under one of the 10 exemptions to paper media publications.

The trial court order highlighted the “objectionable portions” in Shetty’s articles and ruled that use of words such as “brutal” and “third-class advocate” clearly amount to “defamatory phrase”.

“The advocate profession is well-known as a noble profession and their profession also depends upon their efficiency. Any stigma caused to an advocate will impact his profession,” the trial court had held. 

It also noted that only Shetty’s weekly paper had carried the news related to the lawyer. If it was true, the matter should have received publicity in other papers as well, the court added. This fact, the court concluded, showed that Shetty had published the defamatory articles with an “ultra-motive intention”.

Shetty’s defence was rejected by the trial court, which held it as “untrustworthy”, and “not entitled to the benefit of exceptions carved out in defamation law”.

(Edited by Gitanjali Das)


Also Read: Freedom of press supreme, but can’t be one-way traffic, Supreme Court observes


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular