Kerala HC quashes criminal case against Mathrubhumi TV employees for conducting a covert operation; no malicious intent

Background of the case

The reporter was conducting an undercover operation against AG Korah, a senior geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology. Jaison, a reporter from the news channel, approached Korah disguised as a miner and pretended to obtain a mining license from him. Jaison stated that Korah demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000 for issuing the mining license. They further stated that the scene of Korah accepting this bribe was recorded and aired on the news channel.

Korah made allegations of criminal defamation (Sections 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code) against Mathrubhumi TV news reporter Jaison, cameraman Mangosh, news anchor Smruthi Paruthikadan, printer and publisher of Mathrabhumi Press V. Bhaskara Menon, editor Kesava Menon, publisher Unni Balakrishnan and CEO of the publishing house Mohan Nair.

The accused in the present case approached the Supreme Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them, arguing that even if the allegations against them were all true, there was no violation of the charges as they had merely carried out a bona fide undercover operation.

Following the television report, a case was opened against Korah at the Office for Supervision and Anti-Corruption. After the investigation, the final report stated that there was no evidence to prosecute Korah for demanding bribes or disproportionate possession.

The report said that even if the money had been put in the suitcase, the investigation could not prove that the money was put in the suitcase to obtain the licenses. The report said that the news reporter informed officials that the camera and memory card used to record the operation were damaged and that he could no longer produce the card. The report added that there was no evidence that bribes were demanded other than the reporter’s claim.

With regard to the acquisition of disproportionate assets, the report states that the Monitoring Cell monitored Mr Korah for some time and was unable to find any disproportionate assets on him during that period.

Mr. Korah submitted to the court that this final report was accepted by the Commissioner of Inquiry and Special Judge of Thrissur. He argued that he was entitled to prosecute the complainant. He further added that many of the statements made by the complainant were evidence and the court should not interfere at this stage.

Assessment by the court

Judge PV Kunhikrishnan said that further proceedings in the case against the reporters can be dismissed because there is no evidence of personal malice or personal bias against Korah. The report simply attempted to justify the information obtained against Korah.

“There is no case for the 1^st Defendant that there was any personal malice or personal bias against the plaintiffs towards the 1^st Defendant. Their intention is simply to justify information obtained in the course of a covert operation.”

The Court relied on Pradeep.v State of Kerala (2024), which found that journalists cannot be prosecuted for covert operations if there is no malicious intent behind the covert operation and no intention to target anyone.

Accordingly, the court granted the case.

Counsel for the applicants: Adv. CP Udayabhanu

Counsel for the defendants: Attorneys Renjith TR, CS Manu

Case number: Crl.MC 7031 of 2015

Case Title: Jaison and Others v. AG Korah and another

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 571