Can't restrict media's right to expression except by law: HC

KOCHI: In a landmark judgment, the HC has held that the media's right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted except by a law enacted by a competent legislative body, and even then, only on the grounds explicitly listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits the govt to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

A larger bench of the high court, consisting of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath, C P Mohammed Nias, C S Sudha, and V M Syam Kumar, delivered this ruling while addressing petitions on the scope and limitations of the media's freedom in reporting on criminal investigations or cases pending before various courts. The bench also held that the media's right to speech and expression is integral to fundamental rights.

The bench highlighted that while the media reports on criminal investigations or pending cases, its freedom of speech and expression must respect the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution. This principle, along with the rule of law, dictates that the final and authoritative declaration of guilt or innocence is reserved for judicial authorities. Therefore, any definitive media statements about a party's guilt or innocence before a judicial determination do not fall under the protections under the right to speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

In instances where an individual claims that media actions have infringed, or are likely to infringe, on their right to dignity or reputation, they may seek relief in a constitutional court. The bench emphasized that, in situations of conflict between the media's right to expression and an individual's right to dignity, the media's freedom is not absolute. It must be exercised within the framework of constitutional ideals, values, and fundamental duties, which are binding on the media as well.

The ruling also referenced the Supreme Court's Sahara case, which held that broad regulatory measures could constitute pre-censorship. Further, the bench noted that the media's role in disseminating information -- through print, electronic, or audio-visual means -- serves to inform citizens of their rights and responsibilities, promote responsible conduct in a democratic society, and enable public debate on govt policies and actions, fostering an egalitarian society. Accurate and contextually complete information is essential for this role, and it is because of this responsibility that the media's freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected under the Constitution. The judgment stemmed from petitions, including a suo motu case initiated following a standoff between lawyers and the media in the high court in 2016.