Freedom of press and defamation

The Supreme Court has recently observed that the every instance of wrong reporting by the journalists does not amount to defamation. The Court observed that there is no vicarious liability of the heads of a news channel for the wrong publication of a news items by their associates. The Court agreed with the Patna High Court which held that there is no statutory provision for the vicarious liability for the act committed by the associates.
The press is responsible for the correct publication of facts. Its reporting needs to be accurate and diligent. Defamation is both a crime as well as a tort. While a statement off fact is a defence under Section 499 of the IPC, a wrongful report which injures a person's reputation remains both a crime as well as a civil wrong. While the freedom of press is important as it remains the fourth pillar of democracy, it does call out for responsible reporting.

National anthem

The Supreme Court has ruled that its previous order of making the playing the national anthem in cinema halls mandatory before the screening of films should be taken as directory and not compulsory in nature. The Court observed that it did not expect that the said direction to instil patriotism would lead to vigilantes and that would force aged and even disabled to be forced to stand up during the playing of the national anthem and subsequent violence.
The Apex Court observed that the term 'shall' in its previous order should be interpreted as may' and the cinema halls are only directed to play the national anthem but if there choose to play it, then people are required to show respect to it by standing up. However, disabled people cannot be forced to stand during the playing of the national anthem as observed by the order dated April 18, 2017. The central government had suggested to the Court to either pass an order for status quo restoring the position as existed prior to November 30, 2016 or the term 'shall' be replaced by 'may', until the issue is finally decided.

Article 51 A of the Constitution of India deals wth the fundamental duties. Clause (a) states that 'It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and the National Anthem'.

Every citizen is required to show respect to the national insignia but that does not mean that it leads to violence in the name of nationalism and patriotism. Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, provides that: Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The Act does not define what amounts to disrespect of the national anthem. 

The bench remarked that all citizens of India and all persons representing India are duty bound to show utmost respect to the national anthem.

 

Adultery

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with the crime of adultery. The Section provides that when a man enters into a sexual relationship with a married woman it amounts to adultery. While the Section punishes the man who enters into such as relationship, the woman is not punished for the same, neither as an offender nor as an abettor.
Section 497 states that: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
In the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz v State of Bombay (1954), the Supreme Court in a five judge bench, held the given provision to be valid on the ground that Article 15(3) of the Constitution permits special laws for women and children and hence is not gender discriminatory.

Women in territorial army

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that women are eligible for employment in the territorial army. The Court observed that the government advertisement calling for only male candidates is discriminatory and women are also eligible for joining the territorial army. The Court observed that the restrictions on enrollment of women in the territorial army contained in the advertisement are neither reasonable nor rational and are to. be quashed.
Section 6 of the Indian Territorial Army Act, 1948, lays the eligibility for employment. It states that: "Any person who is a citizen of India may offer himself for enrolment in the Territorial Army, and may, if he satisfies the prescribed conditions, be enrolled for such period and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."
The Court observed that the term 'any person' used in Section 6 of the Act includes both male and female and women cannot be discriminated against on the basis of gender. The Court observed that the advertisement to the extent that it excludes women from appointment to the territorial army is ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and hereby quashed