Discuss ownership pattern of newspapers both private and public with special focus on press commissions recommendations on ownership pattern.

  Ownership Patterns of Newspapers: Private and Public

The ownership structure of newspapers plays a crucial role in shaping the media landscape, influencing editorial policies, and determining the diversity of perspectives presented to the public. In India, the patterns of ownership can be broadly categorized into private and public sectors, each with distinct characteristics and implications for press freedom and integrity.

Private Ownership Patterns

Private ownership of newspapers in India is predominantly characterized by various models, including:

- Individual Ownership: Often seen in smaller, local newspapers where an individual has complete control over editorial decisions. This model allows for quick decision-making but can limit democratic participation within the organization.

Print Page

Whether offence of defamation is made out even if there is true narration of incident in newspaper?

As can be seen from the First exception, whether or not the statement or imputation is for the public good is a question of fact. Both these exceptions save the imputations which are made in public good. It being a pure question of fact, as has been observed in the case of Dilip Babasaheb Londhe (supra), it would be appropriate to leave it for the decision at the trial to ascertain if the news item was published in good faith, by extending suitable opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence.

13. As has been held in the case of Sewakram v. R.K Karanjia; (1981) 3 SCC 208, journalist do not enjoy some kind of special privilege or have a greater freedom than others to make imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen. They are in no better position than any other person. Truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First exception unless it is proved to be in public good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact which needs to be proved like any other relevant fact. Bearing in mind these principles, without intending to traverse the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to inquire into and decide the issue, publishing names of the respondent no. 2 and his associates in a news item which could have been published by deleting the names is indeed a material circumstance which will have to be borne in mind by the Magistrate during the trial. At this juncture, in my considered view, publication of such item which has the potential of putting the respondent no. 2 to disrepute and to lower him in the esteems of the others is prima facie sufficient to constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the doors cannot be shut at the threshold.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

Vijay Jawaharlalji Darda  v. State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Application No. 2032 of 2009

Decided on October 4, 2019, [Reserved On: 04.09.2019]

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2634

Print Page

Whether Newspaper report is admissible in evidence unless proved in accordance with law?

The issue is no longer resintegra and came up before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty and another
vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1988 SC 1274 wherein it was
categorically held that the newspaper item being in the nature of
hearsay secondary evidence in itself have no evidentiary value,

unless proved by evidence aliunde. It is apt to reproduce paras 25
and 26 of the judgment and relevant portion whereof reads thus:
“25. ….. We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in
a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary
evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a
newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one
of the documents referred to in Section 78 (2) of the Evidence
Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The
presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the
Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as
proof of the facts reported therein.
26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained
in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore
inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the
statement appearing in Court and deposing to have
perceived the fact reported….” 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3231 of 2014

Date of decision: October 27, 2015.

Private Bus Operator Welfare Society V State of H.P. and others 

Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation;AIR2016(NOC)138HP

Print Page

When accused can be discharged in case of fake orbituary in local newspaper based on forged death certificate?

No doubt the considerations at the initial stage when the charge is framed are different as compared to the considerations at the time of giving final judgment. However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that if the material on which the prosecution relies will not end into conviction, and if, that is obvious at the time of framing of charge the accused shall not be made to go through ordeal of facing trial.

In the present case the Respondent No. 1 got anticipatory bail and therefore, he was not in police custody at all. Respondent No. 2 was arrested and he was remanded to police custody for a few days. The allegations against Respondent No. 1 are that he handed over the papers of Respondent No. 2. Therefore, interrogation of Respondent No. 2 could not have helped the police to find out the source of alleged forged death certificate. The investigation with Corporation revealed that death certificate of the Applicant was not issued by the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai. However, the police could not collect any evidence as to what was the source of death certificate handed over by Respondent No. 2 to the witness Padhye. The submissions of Mr. Wanwari are to be taken into consideration in view of the over all investigation done by the police and material collected against Respondent No. 1 It appears that unfortunately police did not challenge the order of granting anticipatory bail and they did not bother to get custody of the Respondent No. 1 for interrogation to find out the source of alleged forged death certificate. No doubt, if the circumstances create a strong suspicion, a charge could be framed. But that should be cumulative effect of the circumstances and the material against the accused. In the present case it is absolutely clear that the prosecution has no other evidence except the alleged extrajudicial confession made by Respondent No. 2 before his father. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has commented upon the voluntariness and otherwise of the said confession. It may be mentioned here that it was not necessary to give any finding in that regard. It was also not necessary to see whether the statement made by Respondent No. 2 was on his own accord or it was made after the interrogation on the part of his father. What was necessary to be examined at that stage was, whether an extra judicial confession on its own was sufficient to frame charge against Respondent No. 1. After having gone through the judgment cited before me by the learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that if it is more than certain that such a confession cannot form basis of conviction, there was no point in framing charge and asking the Respondent "No. 1 to face the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application Nos. 416 and 518 of 2014 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2014

Decided On: 07.10.2014

Appellants: Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie 
Vs.
Respondent: Shekhar Narayan Shetty and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

 Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)1588

Print Page

Judges need not believe what they read in the newspaper

Trial court is not required to take judicial notice of time of sunset and phase of moon as reported in newspaper; newspaper is not document of such indisputable accuracy as to would justify judicial reliance, particularly

Print Page