Branding person as OGW or alleging links with terrorists amounts to prima facie defamation: J&K High Court

STC NEWS DESK
JAMMU, MARCH 15 (STC): Branding a person as an over-ground worker (OGW) of terrorists or alleging links with militants directly lowers the person’s reputation in society and amounts to prima facie defamation, observed the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in its judgment.
The judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar held that imputations portraying a person as connected with militant activities or assisting terrorists inherently damage the individual’s reputation in the eyes of the public and those who know him.
“For the offence of defamation, intention to harm reputation is not the only requirement. Even if there is no direct intention, the offence may still be made out if a person knows or has reason to believe that the statement is likely to harm the reputation of another, clarifies the Court.
It also reiterated that while the press enjoys the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions, including protection of an individual’s reputation under defamation law.
As far as liability in newspaper publications is concerned, the Court observed that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the editor of a newspaper is presumed to be responsible for selecting the content for publication, and therefore can be held accountable for allegedly defamatory material.
“However, the owner of a newspaper cannot be prosecuted merely because he owns it, unless there are specific allegations showing his involvement in the publication of the impugned content, clarifies the Court.
Notably, the case before the High Court arose from a criminal defamation complaint filed over a news report that allegedly portrayed a person as having links with militants. The accused had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the proceedings before the trial court.
After examining the matter, the High Court partly allowed the petition. The Court quashed the proceedings against the newspaper owner due to lack of specific allegations, but held that the defamation proceedings against the editor would continue before the trial court.
(Straight Talk Communications I Inputs from Agencies)