Supreme Court stays defamation complaint of Jay Shah, chides media

The Supreme Court today asked a Gujarat trial court not to proceed till April 12 with the criminal defamation complaint of Jay Shah, son of BJP president Amit Shah, against news portal 'The Wire' and its scribes and chided especially the electronic m

Supreme Court stays defamation complaint of Jay Shah, chides media

Jay Shah

A visibly irked Chief Justice Dipak Misra tongue-lashed the media, especially the TV channels and portals, and asked: "Can somebody reproduce something in official/public domain and add something 'defamatory' to it. Are innuendos in the realm of defence or realm of freedom".

"Can they write whatever they want? What they write sometimes amounts to serious contempt of court. Is this journalism? Electronic media should be more responsible. I do not want to name channels, but some people think they are Popes sitting on the pulpit, passing judgement. They should be more responsible and the realisation must dawn upon them," the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.

The bench issued notice to Shah and other co-petitioner who had filed the defamation complaint against the portal and its journalists including author Rohini Singh and asked them to respond in two weeks.

"In the meantime, counsel for complainant (Shah) shall apprise Magistrate about the pendency of matters before this Court. We are sure the Magistrate shall take note of it and may not proceed with the case till April 12," the court said.

At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the portal and scribes, said the article contained details from records which are in "public domain electronically". "This is how journalism is throttled in this country. A journalist has no right to question how profits went up by 80 crore," the lawyer asked and added how will journalism flourish.

The bench said there were two issues -- whether factual additions in the article were defamatory or not, and can the editors, who were not part of the article, be also made parties.

Another senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said that even the Managing Editor has been "roped in". Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Shah, vehemently countered Sibal saying they say that facts are in public domain, but was it permissible to "selectively" use the information and lace them with innuendos. It was "scurrilous" reporting.

"Can you selectively pick up facts, concoct them with a motive. It is a manufactured controversy," Kaul said, adding that the controversy has been created because the father of Shah happened to be the head of a political party and they did not carry the version of Jay at the first instance.

The story published by 'The Wire' was a manufactured story and "an example of irresponsible journalism", he said, adding that the reasoned and detailed order of the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, which even quoted the apex court verdicts, should not be stayed.

The freedom of speech and expression cannot be used to damage the reputation of a person, Kaul said. The CJI, who said his observations have "nothing to do with this case", was critical of the electronic media and said they sometimes wrote completely baseless stories on their websites to defame people.

Sibal said journalists vilify politicians and there should not be defamation in each case and added that if the son of a politician (Shah) has been vilified, there was another politician (Chidambaram) whose son is also being vilified. He then referred to the tweet of an eminent person from Chennai who had allegedly tweeted about a Delhi High Court judge who had heard Karti's case, that he was once junior to Congress leader and senior lawyer P Chidambaram.

"No action was taken. This court should have taken a suo motu note of this defamatory tweet," Sibal said. During the hearing, the CJI said "you all are responsible counsel of the country and now, anyone can write something and get away with it".

"I have told many times about Freedom of Speech and Expression. We are not going to gag the media.The question of gagging the media does not arise. But the press should be more responsible," the CJI said. "How can anyone write whatever they feel about anyone. There are limits," the CJI observed. "... their writing sometimes amounts to sheer contempt of court," he added.

The high court had on January 8 rejected a plea filed by the news portal, seeking quashing of the defamation complaint filed against it by Jay over an article related to his company. He had moved the lower court alleging defamation by the petitioners after the article published by the website claimed his company's turnover grew exponentially after the BJP-led government came to power at the Centre in 2014.

The complaint was filed against the author of the article Rohini Singh, founding editors of the news portal Siddharth Varadarajan, Siddharth Bhatia and M K Venu, managing editor Monobina Gupta, public editor Pamela Philipose and the Foundation for Independent Journalism. The foundation publishes The Wire.

Jay has separately filed a civil defamation suit of Rs 100 crore against the website over the article. He has also rejected the charges made in the article, insisting that the story was "false, derogatory and defamatory".

Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels