The latest unfurling of the news of Penden Cement Authority Limited suing Kuensel for defamation is unfortunate considering Kuensel as not only the oldest national print media but also most read, reputed and with fairly trained reporters. But it is worth dwelling on this issue of defamation as it encompasses, the Freedom of Press, the Right to Information versus the Protection of Privacy and Reputation of a person All these rights and protections are enforced against the state and enshrined in the constitution. They look inseparable
yet there does exist a thin line between them. These rights must co-exist in a balanced way for any democratic values to thrive and promote democratic culture of Freedom of Speech and Expression to achieve the visions and gifts from the throne, the model democracy.
It is therefore, that the media to be positive of such steps from public so long as they have published the true and correct statements. It is because, the main role of media is not to be a mouth piece of government or selected parties but an ear and eyes of people where people are informed of state's polices and use of public funds by any public agencies, government owned, semi-government or private if they use tax payer's money. At the same time, media must remind themselves through not only government regulations but through self censure to avoid publishing any facts or issues which might lower someone's honour or reputation. It is the responsibility of the media houses to verify and re-verify the facts and figures before it is published because with a single publication can cause irreparable loss to the reputation of a person.
Defamation is a ground on which a constitutional limitation on right to freedom of expression can be curtailed under Article 7(22) of the Constitution through a legislative process or even by the judiciary thought judicial activism by expanding the scopes or interpreting the provisions of of fundamental rights and their limitation. There is not a single fundamental right which is absolute .
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Defamation is defined as "The offense of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements". Defamation is both a crime as well as a civil wrong or tortious act. Therefore, an aggrieved party may sue either way. If the aggrieved party wants to sue the accused through criminal procedure, it will come under Penal Code of Bhutan where the prosecutor must prove all the elements beyond reasonable doubt where as accused has right to take defense of any exceptions in the law. By applying the rule of interpretation, the laws must be interpreted most restrictively to benefit the accused and where intention is important element to be proven for conviction, though intention can also be direct or implied intention.
However, if the aggrieved party chooses to sue it through the law of tort, defamation refers to false statements about a person, communicated as a fact to one or more other persons by an individual or newspaper, magazine or any person causing damage or harm to another person's reputation in anyway. The defence of malice intent or malafide intention is immaterial so long as there is lowering of the reputation, thereby suffers any injury. The decision of the case is not based on law but on ratio decidendi or Legal precedence as there are no civil laws on this in Bhutan. Since, the case is already filed, I would not dwell on this further. No body knows, who is right and wrong in this instant case untill we have entire facts and circumstances in front of us.
The issue here is not who is right or wrong but how media should conduct in such a fast flowing information era. Media will be bombarded with enormous information on the one hand but on the other hand, how much of that information is credible and true must be the duty of the media to filter and disseminate to the public. Bhutanese media being fairly young, the reporters are often dictated by hectic datelines, limited sources of news in such a small peaceful nation, does build up enough pressure on the journalist in the fields and some mistakes are bound to happen unintentionally or otherwise. The editors are therefore, there to filter those news and if required ask the reporters to do some more research and interviews than to publish with the limited information fed in by the reporter to meet the datelines. Even a large and democratic countries like India, journalist and media organization are often the ones sued for defamation by individuals or corporates amounting to loss of millions and even billions of Rupees as fines and penalty for a single mistake. For instance, Times Now, a TV News Channel in India ended up paying over Rs.500 million for mistakenly showing a photo of renowned Retired Justice of Indian Supreme Court on a bribery case who sued them for Rs.1000 million as damages.
Media must have right to information and freedom of press as provided under the Constitution but also must exercise these rights and freedoms more cautiously as there exist a very small line between violation of some one's privacy or reputation which are equally important as freedom of press. Publishing a true statement is never a defamation and media should never take that as an excuse to refrain from reporting whom they may be affiliated or afraid because they are powerful. It is therefore, imperative that media must perform with caution to avoid any false or untrue facts and figures which could affect someone's reputation otherwise, we would expect more and more allegations of defamation from both natural and legal persons.
yet there does exist a thin line between them. These rights must co-exist in a balanced way for any democratic values to thrive and promote democratic culture of Freedom of Speech and Expression to achieve the visions and gifts from the throne, the model democracy.
It is therefore, that the media to be positive of such steps from public so long as they have published the true and correct statements. It is because, the main role of media is not to be a mouth piece of government or selected parties but an ear and eyes of people where people are informed of state's polices and use of public funds by any public agencies, government owned, semi-government or private if they use tax payer's money. At the same time, media must remind themselves through not only government regulations but through self censure to avoid publishing any facts or issues which might lower someone's honour or reputation. It is the responsibility of the media houses to verify and re-verify the facts and figures before it is published because with a single publication can cause irreparable loss to the reputation of a person.
Defamation is a ground on which a constitutional limitation on right to freedom of expression can be curtailed under Article 7(22) of the Constitution through a legislative process or even by the judiciary thought judicial activism by expanding the scopes or interpreting the provisions of of fundamental rights and their limitation. There is not a single fundamental right which is absolute .
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Defamation is defined as "The offense of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements". Defamation is both a crime as well as a civil wrong or tortious act. Therefore, an aggrieved party may sue either way. If the aggrieved party wants to sue the accused through criminal procedure, it will come under Penal Code of Bhutan where the prosecutor must prove all the elements beyond reasonable doubt where as accused has right to take defense of any exceptions in the law. By applying the rule of interpretation, the laws must be interpreted most restrictively to benefit the accused and where intention is important element to be proven for conviction, though intention can also be direct or implied intention.
However, if the aggrieved party chooses to sue it through the law of tort, defamation refers to false statements about a person, communicated as a fact to one or more other persons by an individual or newspaper, magazine or any person causing damage or harm to another person's reputation in anyway. The defence of malice intent or malafide intention is immaterial so long as there is lowering of the reputation, thereby suffers any injury. The decision of the case is not based on law but on ratio decidendi or Legal precedence as there are no civil laws on this in Bhutan. Since, the case is already filed, I would not dwell on this further. No body knows, who is right and wrong in this instant case untill we have entire facts and circumstances in front of us.
The issue here is not who is right or wrong but how media should conduct in such a fast flowing information era. Media will be bombarded with enormous information on the one hand but on the other hand, how much of that information is credible and true must be the duty of the media to filter and disseminate to the public. Bhutanese media being fairly young, the reporters are often dictated by hectic datelines, limited sources of news in such a small peaceful nation, does build up enough pressure on the journalist in the fields and some mistakes are bound to happen unintentionally or otherwise. The editors are therefore, there to filter those news and if required ask the reporters to do some more research and interviews than to publish with the limited information fed in by the reporter to meet the datelines. Even a large and democratic countries like India, journalist and media organization are often the ones sued for defamation by individuals or corporates amounting to loss of millions and even billions of Rupees as fines and penalty for a single mistake. For instance, Times Now, a TV News Channel in India ended up paying over Rs.500 million for mistakenly showing a photo of renowned Retired Justice of Indian Supreme Court on a bribery case who sued them for Rs.1000 million as damages.
Media must have right to information and freedom of press as provided under the Constitution but also must exercise these rights and freedoms more cautiously as there exist a very small line between violation of some one's privacy or reputation which are equally important as freedom of press. Publishing a true statement is never a defamation and media should never take that as an excuse to refrain from reporting whom they may be affiliated or afraid because they are powerful. It is therefore, imperative that media must perform with caution to avoid any false or untrue facts and figures which could affect someone's reputation otherwise, we would expect more and more allegations of defamation from both natural and legal persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment