The Orissa High Court quashed the proceedings against the input editor of the OTV channel, accused of spreading false information regarding COVID and spreading panic and fear among the public and observed that it is highly unlikely that this one conversation would somehow induce the public to avoid treatment for Covid thus resulting in the spread of the pandemic and much less still induce the public to commit offences against the State.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, who is an input editor in a news channel filed the petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings against him under Sections 269, 270, 120-B and 505(1)(b) of IPC read with Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which were initiated against him after an FIR was filed which alleged that the news channel he worked in was dissuading the public from availing the requisite treatment thereby causing an increase in the spread of COVID and was spreading false information regarding misappropriation of central government funds for the treatment of COVID patients and admission of fake cases and the telecast by the channel was likely to spread panic and fear and induce the public to commit offences against the State after an audio recording of a telephonic conversation between two men, one of whom claimed to have returned from a COVID Hospital after being identified as a Corona +ive was telecast and uploaded on Youtube and other social media platforms by the news channel and the allegation was that one of the men in the conversation had undermined the seriousness of the corona pandemic and claimed that it would be cured without treatment and medicines.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that was a casual conversion between two friends and did not attract any of the offences under which the FIR was registered. It was further stated that instead of creating panic and anxiety, the conversation has pointers on how to prevent the disease and the importance of using masks. The counsel relied on the judgment in the State of Haryana v. C.S. Bhajanlal and Prakash Mishra v. State of Odisha to argue that the court should interfere under Section 482 Cr PC to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
The counsel further relied on the judgment in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Kali Charan Mohapatra v. Srinivas Sahu to argue that registering a criminal case against the channel would amount to curtailing the freedom of the press.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the state stated that the conversation in question amounted to fake news and had the potential to unnecessarily cause panic among the public.
Observations of the Court:
The court further relied on the judgment in Kali Charan Mohapatra v. Srinivas Sahu and Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India which held that the exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) and the airing of views on television shows is in the exercise of this right.
The court further stated that the offences under which the FIR has been registered are not even prima facie made out against the petitioner and the conversation appears to be a casual one not intended to cause panic in the public and it is highly unlikely that this one conversation would somehow induce the public to avoid treatment for Covid thus resulting in the spread of the pandemic and much less still induce the public to commit offences against the State. The court further stated that the continuation of the present criminal case is likely to have a chilling effect on press freedom.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Swadheen Kumar Raut vs. State of Odhisa
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice S. Muralidhar
Case No.: CRLMC No. 1247 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Gautam Misra and Mr. Anupam Dash
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
