Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court — while staying proceedings against journalists following the row over use of govt chopper — has made it clear that the mere fact that a public officeholder feels offended cannot, by itself, justify state action.Stressing the primacy of free speech, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed that criticism and satire are ‘hardly cherished by people holding public office’.The appropriate legal test must always be that of ordinary prudence and the existence of a direct nexus between the expression and any alleged harm, he said on Jan 12, while staying proceedings on the FIR registered by Punjab Police against four individuals, including RTI activist and journalists, for allegedly spreading misinformation over the use of Punjab govt’s helicopter. The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR.In its detailed order released on Wednesday, Jan 21, the bench observed that merely because a person holding a public office feels offended may not be the yardstick on which state action is to be measured. “It would also not be influenced by the projections sought to be portrayed by state… A remote possibility of some reaction or motivated artificial inflammation of sentiments or such display shall hold such person liable for such action and the criminal liability would not trickle to the authors. The test of conduct of a reasonable person with objective ordinary prudence also lies on the person who sets the criminal law in motion,” observed the court.Justice Bhardwaj clarified that legal principles do not change on the basis of who the complainant or the accused may be. The uniformity of law and its universal application is what a court is required to do, he pointed out.The judge also recorded that the court does feel that social media influences and print / visual media should adhere to the ethics of journalism reflecting commitment to truth, accuracy and independent, impartial reporting and not an unfair, motivational and spread of propaganda. However, this aspect is yet to be determined, the order said.“Issues pertaining to the existence of ingredients for prima facie commission of offence are required to be demonstrated. Continuation of criminal process, in the meantime, would prejudice rights of the aggrieved. The same thus needs to be protected at his stage. In the meanwhile, further investigation shall remain till the next date of hearing,” observed the judge while staying action against the petitioners. The next hearing is on Feb 23.BOX“Right of reporting, as a part of journalistic freedom of speech and expression, has arisen much often for consideration before courts. Often, criticism and satire is hardly cherished by people holding public office and sometimes, the reactions come forth by way of cyber-bullying, sullying or even silencing the critique and criticism,” said Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj.
