Doubting whether publication of articles against the Governor in a magazine will attract Section 124 (assaulting President/Governor with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power) of Indian Penal Code, the Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed all further proceedings in a case pending against journalist Nakheeran Gopal and a few others.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said the issue required a deeper consideration. Therefore, the proceedings pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate court at Egmore in Chennai have to be stayed till then. The interim order was passed on a petition filed by Mr. Gopal and four others to quash the chargesheet filed against them by the city police.
The police booked the case in October last on the basis of a complaint lodged by T. Sengottaiyan, Deputy Secretary to the Governor accusing Tamil magazine ‘Nakheeran’ of publishing reports insinuating that the Governor and senior Raj Bhavan officials had links with one Nirmala Devi, who was arrested that year on charges of attempted trafficking of college girls.
The complainant wanted the First Information Report (FIR) to be booked specifically under Section 124 IPC and the police obliged though the provision of law could be invoked only against those who assault, wrongfully restrain or overawe the President or a Governor either by means of criminal force or by show of criminal force.
Opposing the present quash petition, the police argued the accused attempted to overawe the Governor and prevent him from discharging his duties by continuously publishing a series of defamatory articles linking him and his office with an unconnected issue.
Not convinced with the submission, the judge said the most important issue that had to be decided now was whether the FIR and the materials collected by police make out an offence under Section 124 of IPC. He also said it was the first case after Independence where the court had to decide whether publication of articles would have the effect of overawing the Governor.
“In order to satisfy the requirements of the word ‘overawe,’ there must be something more than the creation of an apprehension, alarm or even perhaps fear,” the judge said and pointed out that Section 124 had ingredients similar to Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of IPC, which was a generic version.
While interpreting Section 353, the Supreme Court in Manik Taneja verus State of Karnataka (2015) held that criminal force or an assault could not be said to have occurred just by publishing a post on Facebook, however malicious it may be. Taking a cue from it, the judge said the present case had to be analysed in the light of that judgment.
After staying the proceedings pending before the trial court, he directed the High Court Registry to list the quash petition for final hearing on July 8.
