When Nehru and Indira sought to suppress dissent and asked media to bend, the Organiser refused to yield, standing resolute in its commitment to truth. This legacy of fearless journalism has persevered through turbulent times, unwavering in its dedication to upholding democratic values. On the occasion of its 75th anniversary, Organiser reached yet another milestone, cementing its role as a beacon of journalistic integrity and legal advocacy in the defense of Freedom of Speech.
On November 26, the Kerala High Court delivered a landmark judgment quashing the criminal prosecution and defamation proceedings initiated against Organiser Weekly by a lower court at the behest of the banned Islamic terrorist outfit, the Popular Front of India (PFI). Rejecting the arguments presented by the respondents on behalf of the PFI, the court firmly held that a defamation complaint from a proscribed organization has no legal standing.
The petition (Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Ltd. & Ors. v. C.P. Mohammed Basheer & Anr.) was filed by the editors, printer, publisher, and management of Bharat Prakashan Delhi Limited, the entity responsible for publishing Organiser Weekly. The case revolved around the article titled “The Usual Suspect,” published on September 17, 2017, which had come under scrutiny for its bold exposé on the PFI’s terrorist activities.
‘The Usual Suspect’
The article titled “The Usual Suspect,” part of the cover story “Veiled Jihad,” sought to elevate the issue of “Love Jihad” to national prominence. Based on investigation reports and other sources, it presented compelling evidence linking the Popular Front of India (PFI) to Love Jihad, along with fresh allegations against the organization—findings that were subsequently picked up by other print and visual media outlets.
The article provided a brief historical account of Islamic fundamentalism in the post-Jamaat-e-Islami era. It also enumerated the crimes of the PFI, including its involvement in the recruitment of terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir in 2008, the Bengaluru serial blasts, the brutal hand-chopping of Prof. TJ Joseph over alleged blasphemy, the Marad massacre, and its participation in over 29 murders and 87 attempted murders, among other heinous acts. It played a pivotal role in influencing the Union Government’s eventual decision to impose a ban on the organization.
Drawing on highly credible sources and the Home Ministry dossiers, the report also unveiled the identities of PFI’s real leadership, operating discreetly behind the scenes. The Popular Front of India (PFI) deliberately sought to keep its true leadership concealed from the public eye, shielding them behind a façade of shadow leaders. However, when the article unveiled the involvement of former SIMI leaders—E.M. Abdu Rahiman, Prof. P. Koya, E. Aboobecker, P. Abdul Hameed, and K. Muhammed Ali—operating from behind the scenes, the organization was thrown into disarray. The organisation rightly perceived it as a dire warning for the group, as all individuals named in the report are now detained in Tihar Jail following the PFI’s ban.
Quoting a Home Ministry dossier, the report revealed that the PFI had an estimated 60,000 active members and 85,000 sympathizers in Kerala alone, with an annual growth rate of 3 to 5 percent. These figures underscore the significant reach and rapid expansion of the organization, further validating the gravity of the disclosures.
What provoked PFI?
The PFI enjoyed significant favor from the media in Kerala, flourishing since its inception. The organization maintained a pervasive influence, with agents embedded in nearly all media outlets, political parties, and social organizations.
The media strategy of SIMI, NDF, and PFI followed a consistent pattern: either winning over journalists through appeasement or coercing them through intimidation. Allegations had surfaced that multiple media organizations and journalists were financially supported by the PFI, many of whom continued to vocally endorse the group even after its legal prohibition. Evidently, several journalists collaborated closely with the PFI, particularly during the anti-CAA riots.
When attempts at appeasement failed, the PFI resorted to intimidation tactics, particularly targeting pro-nationalist media in Kerala that published critical articles about them. Central to this strategy was a dedicated legal cell, meticulously designed to exert pressure on media houses. By swiftly issuing legal notices, the PFI effectively stifled dissenting voices and ensured that no incriminating evidence about their activities remained in the public domain. This strategy often compelled media outlets to retract reports, issue public apologies, or both. Several prominent media platforms fell victim to this calculated approach.
The same tactics of intimidation were directed at Organiser Weekly following the publication of “The Usual Suspect,” underscoring the PFI’s relentless efforts to suppress narratives that exposed their covert operations. However, instead of responding to the legal notice, Shri. Prafulla Ketkar, the chief editor of the Organiser weekly, addressed the matter by publishing yet another cover story, this time, a dedicated issue exposing the extremist activities of the Popular Front.
Citing a source from the Home Ministry, the article had disclosed that Salafi organizations in Malappuram had received Rs.150 crore from a single donor in Qatar. It also exposed the covert operations of Sathya Sarani, a PFI-run conversion center in Malappuram. Seven years later, in October 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) corroborated these findings, leading to the confiscation of Sathya Sarani.
Notably, in 2021, a Turkish NGO, IHH, served a legal notice to Organiser Weekly following its exclusive report on a meeting between IHH representatives and PFI leaders. The article, published on November 16, 2020—two years before the Islamist group’s ban—detailed IHH’s connections with global Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas. Later, our investigations revealed that the PFI orchestrated this legal action, using the IHH as a proxy to target Organiser Weekly and discredit its reporting.
The far-reaching implications of the verdict
From the legal point of view, this judgment stands as a significant landmark in the cases pertaining to criminal defamation and freedom of speech. It should be considered a victory for the media’s role in upholding truth and transparency, underscoring that no vested interest group can silence the press through legal intimidation.
“It cannot be said that there is defamation to a banned association because of certain publication by the petitioners,” the court said. The Court noted that the definition of “person” under Section 11 of the IPC includes associations or bodies, whether incorporated or not, it clarified that this does not extend to organizations that have been declared unlawful and banned. Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, the Popular Front of India may come within the definition of ‘person’ as defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. But when ‘the Popular Front of India’ itself is banned in India by the Central Government, such a banned association will not come within the purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, because, a banned association has no legal entity. For that simple reason, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution against the petitioners is to be quashed.”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs declared that the Central Government, having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the above order, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, declared the Popular Front of India and its associates or affiliates or fronts including Rehab India Foundation, Campus Front of India, All India Imams Council, National Confederation of Human Rights Organization, National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala as an unlawful association,” the court pointed out.
The far-reaching implications of the verdict are profound, not only for the specific case but also for the broader landscape of press freedom and judicial independence in India. By quashing the defamation proceedings against Organiser Weekly and reaffirming that a banned organization like the Popular Front of India (PFI) cannot legally initiate such actions, the Kerala High Court has set a vital precedent in protecting the Freedom of Speech of other media organisations facing legal proceedings initiated by the PFI.
A Message for Media Fraternity
As Malkani Ji famously wrote in his editorial celebrating his triumph over the Nehruvian regime’s censorship, “Our freedom marks the guaranteeing of the freedom of the entire press of the nation.” With this landmark judgment, Organiser has once again reaffirmed its role as a custodian of press freedom, safeguarding the liberty of the entire media fraternity in its relentless pursuit of truth against the forces of intimidation and anti-nationalism.
The verdict underscores the vital role of the media, often hailed as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy, in safeguarding freedom of speech and championing fearless journalism. I believe, it echoes the timeless wisdom of the Mahabharata: Dharmo Rakshati Rakshita—Dharma protects those who protect it. Similarly, if we uphold the principle of Freedom of Speech despite threats and adversities, it will protect those who courageously defend it. The truth, fearlessly published by the media in the face of intimidation and threats, became a lifeline for the nationalist media fraternity during this critical trial. As a trusted platform, the report published by Organiser Weekly was promptly picked up and amplified by other prominent media outlets, creating a united front. As the judge aptly observed, “These are only some of the allegations against the Popular Front of India that were available in the public domain at that stage.” This serves as a benchmark for the future, illustrating how responsible media can collectively fulfill their duties to counteract threats to Free Speech.
Had Organiser’s revelations been ignored due to fear of repercussions, the outcome might have been starkly different. Instead, after seven years of relentless legal battles, we now witness the triumph of truth and the enduring power of standing firm on Satya and Dharma. It is a testament to the fact that when Freedom of Speech is upheld, it protects those who uphold it.
History repeated itself and the Legacy continues…
In 1950, Organiser was at the forefront of the first Supreme Court case (Brij Bhushan And Anr. vs The State of Delhi) in independent India that challenged the speech-restrictive provisions of the Public Safety Act. This Act had imposed brutal censorship on Organiser for its extensive reportage on communal riots during and after Partition. Organiser mounted a fierce legal challenge. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down these draconian provisions, thanks to the determined efforts of Organiser’s legendary editor, Shri K.R. Malkani, and publisher, Shri Brij Bhushan.
This landmark verdict marked the first major confrontation between Parliament and the Supreme Court. Ironically, it provoked the ire of Jawaharlal Nehru—hailed as a liberal and a champion of free speech—who responded by introducing the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951. This amendment prioritized the State’s interests over press freedoms, effectively curtailing Freedom of Expression, turning the Ambedkar’s Constitution into a ‘Nehruvian’ one. A bitter paradox in the annals of India’s democratic journey!
“Facts are sacred. To withhold their publication because they are unpalatable would be to play false to Truth. If the administration earnestly wants ugly facts not to appear in the press, the only right and honest course for it is effectively to exert itself for the non-occurrence of such brutal facts,” the then editor of the Organiser Shri K R Malkani wrote in the editorial. Malkani’s words later became watchwords, guiding the ethos of fearless journalism for generations.
“After a gruelling three months subjection to the galling orders of an over-reaching executive we once again breath[e] the air of freedom. Our felicity is heightened by the fact that the freedom achieved is for the whole nation and not a mere personal salvation. For our freedom marks the guaranteeing of the freedom of the entire press of the Nation. Generations yet unborn will look upon this decision as the corner stone of the arch of liberty for the people no less than for their press. For the press it is a veritable Magna Carta under whose provisions it can go from strength to strength in an empyrean of liberty. We have no words to congratulate the Supreme Court for its supreme sense of duty to uphold the spirit of our Democratic Republican Constitution. We thank them not only on behalf of ourselves but on behalf of the entire national Press of Bharat,” Shri Malkani added in his historical editorial titled “All’s Well That Ends Well”, dated June 5, 1950.
It is essential to recognise and appreciate the pivotal role played by the Bharat Prakashan’s leadership in fostering an environment where journalistic independence thrives. “Fearless journalism” remains a hollow and fashionable phrase unless backed by the unwavering support of a strong and principled management. In this regard, Bharat Prakashan stands as a vanguard, embodying the essence of true journalistic courage. The management of Bharat Prakashan has consistently provided a robust legal and moral support, ensuring that the editorial team is free to pursue the truth without fear or favor.
History, it seems, has repeated itself. The 2024’s verdict is a poignant reminder of the Organiser’s historical struggles for press freedom in India and echoes the battles fought in the past, particularly in 1950. However, this time, with a nationalist government in the centre ensures that there is no attempt to circumvent a court verdict through a constitutional amendment or an ordinance, as the Nehru government did in 1950. The battles fought by Organiser Weekly for Freedom of Expression remain a defining chapter in the history of Indian journalism, a legacy acknowledged by many eminent historians and legal experts.
Discussion about this post