On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Sikkim High Court’s refusal to quash the summonses in a defamation case brought by Santiago Martin in 2020 against the Managing Editor, Managing Director, and Joint Managing Editor of the Malayalam newspaper Mathrubhumi.

The complaint was filed under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Martin after a defamatory statement was made by Mathrubhumi publication saying, “lottery mafia-like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala.”

Mathrubhumi claimed that the statement itself was made by the then Kerala Finance Minister Thomas Issac, and the publication had only quoted his words.

In order to harm his name and reputation, Martin claimed that the newspaper and its management planned to publish items in both the daily paper and its online edition.

The case brought by The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publication Company Limited and others was denied by the Sikkim High Court as there was absolutely no justification for overturning the lower court’s ruling.

The High Court had rejected the defense that the editors could not be held liable without the complainant having established beyond a reasonable doubt that they at least had firsthand knowledge of the contents prior to publication.

Mathrubhumi argued that the news was published by them in good faith, believing the Minister’s account to be accurate, and was a report addressing the opinion of a public servant regarding a public question and public policy and was therefore protected by Section 499 of the IPC.

Lastly, the Apex Court voiced its concern over the Malayalam publication Mathrubhumi’s use of the term “Mafia” as an identifying characteristic for a man who operates lotteries.

The newspaper’s representative, K.V. Vishwanathan, stated that clarification had been published when the subject was first discussed on Tuesday by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Senior Advocate A.S. Oka.

Aryama Sundaram, a senior counsel, speaking on behalf of Martin said, “This is an apology for an apology. This is not fair.” Justice Kaul also concurred that it was indeed an apology for the sake of an apology.

Justice Kaul said, “Last time, it was argued for quite some time. We gave you a way out.”

Vishwanathan requested a Passover when he became aware that the Bench was leaning toward a settlement between the parties, given that the Bench had previously stated that it would not grant a stay of the High Court’s judgment.

Both parties concurred on a specific statement that will be published in the Mathrubhumi newspaper when the topic is finally brought up after being passed over.

Sundaram said, “Let him say apology and not clarification.” To which Justice Kaul suggested, “To my mind, publish it as a statement.”

After both parties agreed on the matter, the bench recorded, “the two sides have thought it fit to bring the present dispute to an end and save both of them unnecessary harassment and legal expenses. The petitioners have agreed to publish the following statement.”

“Needless to say, the petitioner has submitted that they will publish the aforesaid statement with the same font size and prominence as the news article was published…We close the current proceeding with the direction that the publication will take place within seven days,” the statement added.

At Sundaram’s request, the Bench made it very apparent that the current order put an end to the legal dispute between Martin and the newspaper, including its official. However, the current order has no bearing on the procedures relating to the complaint against Kerala’s Finance Minister, Thomas Issac.

The statement quoted, “Needless to say, this is the end of the list so far as the two parties are concerned and not accused one.”

The Bench added that all disagreements between the parties in question will be resolved by this agreement. The case against the newspaper and its representatives would be dismissed upon the release of the statement approved by the parties.

“Forecloses any dispute in these parties. On publication of the statement the complaint against the aforesaid petitions will stand quashed.”