New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasized that individuals holding key positions in the media must exercise the highest level of caution and responsibility before publishing statements, news, or opinions.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that while the right to freedom of speech and expression is paramount, the media wields significant influence in shaping public opinion. The court stated that the press has the power to swiftly impact public sentiment and alter perceptions.

The bench made the observation while quashing a defamation case against the editorial director of The Times of India and other journalists. They were accused of publishing allegedly defamatory content regarding the authenticity of certain paintings set to be auctioned by Bid & Hammer – Fine Art Auctioneers.

"We find it necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions," the bench said in its February 18 judgement.

The top court quoted English writer Bulwer Lytton as saying, “The pen is mightier than the sword”.

Given the vast reach, the court said, a single article or report could resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments.

It has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring, it added.

"This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith," said the bench.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by journalists challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had dismissed their plea against the initiation of criminal proceedings.

They faced charges under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC.

The complainant, an art auction house, alleged that the published news article had led readers to view it with suspicion and created an unfounded public perception that the artworks it auctioned could be fake.

However, the Supreme Court noted procedural irregularities in the magistrate’s summoning order and observed that the complainant failed to present any witness to prima facie establish that the alleged imputations had harmed its reputation.

"No material has also been placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers," it said.

The bench added, "Irrespective of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed." PTI