[ad_1]
Rediff.com had carried an article on Jayalalithaa’s failing well being in 2015.
The Madras High Court has quashed prison defamation proceedings initiated by the State authorities against the chairman, Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor and reporter of Rediff.com for carrying a information article on July 10, 2015 accusing the media of not reporting broadly concerning the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s failing well being.
Justice P.N. Prakash mentioned the truth that Jayalalithaa was not protecting effectively grew to become very apparent on May 23, 2015 when the entire world watched the unprecedented act of her total Cabinet of 28 Ministers take oath in two batches, in a ceremony that hardly lasted for half-hour, as an alternative of the same old observe of taking oath individually.
No foundation
The choose agreed with senior counsel R. Shunmugasundaram, representing the chairman and workers of the web portal, that the prison defamation proceedings initiated against them in 2015 had no leg to face on. He quashed the defamation proceedings launched by way of the City Public Prosecutor.
The choose additionally identified that the information article within the web portal had solely discovered fault with the mainstream media for not reporting about Jayalalithaa’s well being situation and it didn’t check with any specific ailment suffered by her or made any disparaging comment about her well being. It solely highlighted that Jayalalithaa was not very energetic.
The article acknowledged that she had been visiting the Secretariat solely twice per week after assuming workplace as Chief Minister for the second time in May 2015 and didn’t stay there for greater than half-hour. The temporary window was used to inaugurate authorities schemes by way of video convention and even the celebrated Chennai Metro was inaugurated that manner. There was completely no interplay with the media and solely choose tv crews in addition to photographers have been allowed to seize the Chief Minister visually.
“Surprisingly, there has not been even a murmur of protest from any of the media outlets for the nauseating development,” the article acknowledged and claimed that her poor well being had affected authorities administration.
Pending information
Opposing the quash petition, State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan identified that the information article had quoted an nameless IAS officer to have mentioned that information used to maneuver even when a “dummy” authorities beneath the Chief Ministership of O. Panneerselvam (now Deputy Chief Minister) was in place whereas an absolute paralysis was observing them attributable to Jayalalithaa’s failing well being.
He argued that this nameless quote was unfaithful and defamatory. However, Justice Prakash brushed apart the argument on the bottom that “an allegedly defamatory article must be read as a whole and not in bits and pieces. An assessment of the state of affairs of the administration at a given point of time cannot amount to defamation”.
The choose went on to state: “Right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is sacrosanct though it can be restricted on the grounds set out in Article 19(2). The press has a duty to keep the public informed about the happenings in the administration of the State. If this freedom is stifled, rumours and gossips will masquerade as truth.”
[ad_2]
