The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stressed that journalistic freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted merely because a public official feels offended by reporting or criticism. The Court made this observation while staying further investigation in a case against journalists and an activist who had published or shared content critical of a state official.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj emphasised that subjective feelings of offence taken by someone holding public office cannot be the sole basis for state action or for initiating criminal proceedings. The Court noted that criticism and satire, even if unwelcome to officials, are part of robust public discourse, and cannot automatically attract legal sanctions unless there is a clear nexus to wrongdoing or harm.
The bench observed that determining whether an alleged offence has been made out must be based on the standard of an ordinary, prudent person, rather than on an official’s hypersensitivity. It held that legal action should not be triggered simply because the subject of a report is annoyed or displeased; rather, there must be demonstrable elements of an offence before the criminal process can proceed.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that journalists and media professionals should adhere to ethics of truth, accuracy, independence, impartiality and responsibility in reporting, and avoid spreading misinformation or unfounded allegations while exercising their freedoms.
