Press or media freedom is a right to be exercised freely, says High Court

Kolkata: Observing that freedom of the press or media should be considered a right to be exercised freely, Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a broadcast media house in a case where during a panel discussion a panelist allegedly made objectionable remarks against a certain community.

The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed: “Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the fundamental principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state.”

The court was moved by the media house concerned praying for quashing a criminal proceeding initiated against them due to remarks made by a panelist. The petitioners are the editor-in-chief and the media company.

The complaint lodged prayed for action against the petitioners for the broadcast of the objectionable remarks of the panelist which allegedly sought to promote enmity between different communities.

The counsel for the petitioners, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who was leading a team of lawyers, submitted that the debate show was live and the panelist concerned was immediately cut-off and interrupted by the editor-in-chief, who was hosting the broadcast, the moment the comment was made.

Further, the channel had issued a wide-reaching clarification on social media that they do not endorse such views and that panelists air their own opinions. The said broadcast was live and, as such, beyond the control of the petitioners to predict in advance the conduct of the panelist.

State said the petitioners posted the unedited telecast with the imputations which caused disharmony. The petitioners’ counsel said without the video the context wouldn’t be understood.

On promoting enmity or hatred between two groups, court observed there were no two groups involved and there is nothing to show that there was any overact on the part of the petitioners which led to the panelist making such statements. The court, thus, quashed the case against the petitioners.