Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that editors can be held criminally liable for defamation if they republish derogatory statements taken from social media. The court declined to quash proceedings against a magazine that reproduced alleged defamatory remarks about actor-director Mahesh P Nair.
Justice G Girish made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the editors of Vellinakshatram seeking to dismiss a defamation case against them. The case arose after the magazine republished a social media post containing alleged derogatory comments about Mahesh. The editors argued that the remarks had already circulated publicly online before they reproduced them.
However, the court noted that by quoting the derogatory statements originally posted by director Baiju Kottarakkara on their website, the editors had effectively republished highly defamatory content capable of harming Mahesh’s reputation.
The editors had contended that simply redisplaying an objectionable post that had already appeared on social media would not amount to an offence under Section 500 of the IPC, which deals with punishment for criminal defamation. The High Court rejected this argument, observing that the presence of such content in the public domain does not shield editors from criminal liability if they publish words that damage a person’s reputation, Indian Express reported.
The court further pointed out that editors could avoid liability only if their actions fall within any of the exceptions provided under Section 499 of the IPC, which defines criminal defamation. Since the facts cited by the editors in support of their plea differed from those in the present case, the court said their argument against continuing the prosecution could not be accepted.
Referring to Mahesh’s sworn statement, the court also noted that several of his friends and well-wishers had formed a negative impression about him after reading the derogatory remarks on the magazine’s website. This, the court said, indicated that the content published by the editors was indeed defamatory.
The editors had maintained that republishing the post should not attract criminal defamation charges because the remarks had already reached the public through the original social media platform and were not defamatory in nature. On this basis, they asked the court to terminate the criminal proceedings against them.