Why Was an FIR Filed Against The Wire’s Founder for Reporting Fake News?
A recent incident involving The Wire, an independent news website, demonstrates the complexity and challenge of managing journalistic integrity in the digital age. The founder, Siddhartha Varadarajan, faced legal action after a false statement was attributed to a public figure, raising questions about the application of legal thresholds to online reporting.
The Incident
The controversy began when Siddhartha Varadarajan posted a tweet attributing a statement about Ram saving devotees from the coronavirus to Yogi Adityanath. The statement was later revealed to be incorrect; the actual attribution belonged to Acharya Paramhans, head of the official Ram temple trust. This misattribution sparked a legal complaint, leading to the filing of an FIR (First Information Report) against Varadarajan for spreading a fake tweet.
A Clarification and Note for Corrections
In response to the misattribution, Siddhartha Varadarajan issued a public clarification within 24 hours, and a note was added to the article to rectify the error. Initially, the story had erroneously stated that Ram had saved devotees from the coronavirus, attributing the quote to Yogi Adityanath. This was corrected to accurately reflect the statement made by Acharya Paramhans.
Legal Analysis
The FIR mentions two sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 188 and Section 505(2). However, these sections do not provide a solid basis for prosecuting Varadarajan.
Section 188
According to Section 188 of the IPC, the FIR was filed by a private individual, not a public servant. This means that the first section of the IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) does not apply in this case.
Even if it were applicable, the case would fall through due to the swift correction made by Siddhartha Varadarajan. Given that the attribution error was acknowledged and rectified within a day, there was no intent to disobey any law or order.
Section 505(2)
Under Section 505(2) of the IPC, the intent to create enmity, hatred, or ill will between different groups is a key consideration. In this instance, Siddhartha Varadarajan did not create or promote any enmity or hatred. The error was merely a misattribution, and no harm was intended.
Conclusion
While the Wire and its founder have faced legal threats for misattribution, it is important to consider the broader context. In a regular environment, such an error would not warrant criminal prosecution. Misattribution, while ethically problematic, is not a criminal offense.
However, the incident highlights the challenges faced by journalists in India. The FIR reflects the complex relationship between legal standards and journalistic practices, particularly in regions where laws are sometimes misused for political purposes.
In conclusion, Siddhartha Varadarajan's case underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing errors in reporting. While it is crucial to maintain journalistic integrity, legal prosecution should be reserved for actions that genuinely breach public order or create significant harm.
Ultimately, the application of legal standards in this case raises questions about the balance between protecting free expression and ensuring accurate reporting in a digital age.