Madras High Court today stayed all proceedings relating to a defamation complaint filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against a leading English daily.
Justice V Dhanapalan issued the interim order on a petition filed by the "Times of India" challenging the defamation proceedings initiated against it for publishing a news item on October 22 last that pertained to a bribery allegation against the personal assistant of a state minister.
Posting the matter for after four weeks, the judge also dispensed with the personal appearance of the TOI Chennai edition's Publisher & Printer, Editor (Chennai market) and the reporter concerned, before the principal sessions court here.
City public prosecutor M L Jagan had lodged a criminal defamation complaint before the principal sessions court based on a October 24 government order authorising him to do so.
The sessions court had taken the matter on file and issued summons to the three, directing them to appear in court tomorrow.
In its petition seeking to quash the October 24 Government Order, the daily submitted that the concept of defamation in relation to those holding public office or government was qualitatively different from defamation in respect of private individuals.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for the daily, told the court that the article in question was a fair criticism which could not be termed defamatory.
"In a free democratic society, those who hold public office in government and are responsible for public administration, should be open to criticism and citizens have legitimate and substantial right to know the conduct of public officials, as they have influential role in society," he contended.
The counsel said comments and criticisms have to be tolerated by authorities, and added that the article "by no stretch of imagination" cause any allegation or imputation against the minister concerned.
Government Pleader S T S Moorthy, however, said under clause 2 of Section 199 of CrPC, if any defamatory statement is made against the public servant/employee in respect of his conduct in discharge of the public function, sessions court may take cognizance of such offence.
