Victim’s Identity Not Disclosed; News Channel Has Liberty To Telecast Feature Programmes: Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Asianet
The Kerala High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by the accused persons under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd., arising from a programme telecasted by its News channel and the YouTube channel under the caption “Narcotics is a dirty business.”
The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by the accused persons under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “A news channel has the liberty to telecast feature programmes and the same unless found to be patently illegal, Section 83(2) of the JJ Act would not have any application. In the instant case, while telecasting video to alert the public in general regarding drug abuse, the daughter of the 4th accused was shown from behind as the survivor and in fact, her identity also not disclosed. It could not be held that the said purpose is illegal. If so, offence under Section 83(2) also would not attract in the facts of this case.”
The Bench noted that medias and news channels are considered as the fourth pillar of democracy by guaranteeing freedom of the press but, in order to increase TRP, as part of survival strategy, now some channels and medias are engaged in publishing and telecasting variety modes of news and entertainments touching social, economic and subjects of cultural events in the society.
Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai represented the Petitioners/Accused while Special Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan represented the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
As per the prosecution case, the accused persons hatched a conspiracy with an intention to defame the image of the Government and telecasted a programme “Narcotics is a dirty business” as a 'Roving Report' on November 10, 2022 and failed to inform the occurrence regarding a POCSO Act offence in relation to the child interviewed in school uniform. It was further alleged that the accused forged a video under the said caption and telecasted through Asianet News Channel and Asianet YouTube channel.
The specific allegation was that in order to increase Television Rating Point (TRP) and its income, the accused Executive Editor who was authorized to plan the programmes of the channel and to permit its telecast, after its scrutiny, had WhatsApp/Zoom meeting and decided to make investigative programme. The Bureau Chief agreed for the same and thereafter, the accused persons decided to include the POCSO victim in the said programme. Hence, a case was registered against them for the said allegations and being aggrieved, the accused persons approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “Tracing the ingredients to attract offence of forgery, making a false document or a false electronic record or part thereof with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any other person, is an offence of forgery. So, one of the most essential ingredients to find offence of forgery is intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. In the instant case, the intention of the channel is not to cause any injury to any public or to the survivor, in any manner and the intention is so vivid to the effect that it was intended to alert the public regarding increase in drug abuse among youngsters in Kerala.”
The Court noted that the use of the voice of the survivor which she voluntarily gave after jumbling the sentences is not the use of the same in its original form.
“It would have the characteristics of a doctored voice. If so, the fundamental ingredient to constitute the offence of forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC, could not be prima facie found. Since offence of forgery could not be found, offence under Section 471 - use of a forged document or electronic record as genuine, does not arise”, it added.
The Court further observed that once it is found prima facie that there is no forgery of documents, then, destruction of the same or causing disappearance of evidence of offence to screen the forgery also does not arise.
“But, some medias and channels are active in reporting any news which would give a mileage to medias and channels in any form, which ultimately increase its TRP. In this endevour, mere allegations also being published, telecasted and circulated without having further investigation or enquiry with regard to the truth of the allegations and even without getting the words of the aggrieved or the person who is affected by the news, whose image being tarnished by the said news, which may be false”, it remarked.
The Court said that the moral and elementary principles of journalism rather the legal principle of natural justice warrant to get versions of both sides and publish or telecast both versions to the domain of the readers and viewers to decide the truth of the matter independently by themselves, on evaluating both versions.
“Therefore, it is high time for the channels and medias to be more vigilant while giving news items in channels and medias in any form to have an enquiry with regard to the truth of the matter or to include the version of the other side (the person against whom the allegations are levelled) after hearing him, or somebody on his behalf capable of explaining the stand of the other side, then, the medias may report both versions to the viewers and readers to decide what actually is the truth behind the news”, it also cautioned.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Sindhu S. & Ors. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30672)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, Advocates V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, V. John Sebastian Ralph, Victor George V.M., Preeja P. Vijayan, Smitha (Ezhupunna), Pavan Rose Johnson, and Vandana Bhat T.V.
Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan and Senior Public Prosecutor Sajju S.
