ORDER : 1. Since both writ petitions have been filed challenging one and the same proceedings, viz., C.C. No.11 of 2012, they are considered and decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions, who are with India Today Tamil Weekly, are facing prosecution in C.C. No.11 of 2012 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 499(2) read with 500 and 501 IPC, for quashing which, they have preferred these writ petitions. 3. Heard Mr. Sundar Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Natarajan, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, assisted by Mrs. Kritika Kamal, P., learned Government Advocate. 4. The prosecution in C.C. No.11 of 2012 was initiated on a complaint in writing made by the City Public Prosecutor, Chennai, alleging that the petitioners herein have defamed late J. Jayalalitha, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the article “TAMIL” (time for retaliation) in the Tamil weekly edition of India Today dated 08.08.2012. After obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 199 (4)(b) Cr.P.C. from the State Government, the City Public Prosecutor, has filed the impugned complaint, as stated above. 5. In the impugned complaint, the alleged defamatory portions have been extracted and they are as under together with free translation: “A photo of J. Jayalalitha and Sasikala sitting next to each other and the caption thereon stating “TAMIL” (Jaya and Sasi relationship; thirty years history). “TAMIL” (Removal of Sengottaiyan from the party and Minister-ship shows that Sasikala is once again gaining influence in the party and administration. The future of infuriated AIADMK cadres and the State administration becomes a question mark). “TAMIL” (In the matter of Sengottaiyan, Sasikala has hit three mangoes in one stone. Firstly, she wreaked vengeance on the person who was responsible for her ouster from the party. Secondly, by taking action against Sengottaiyan, she has sent a clear message to the party functionaries who are sitting like cat on the wall that it is only she who is having an upper hand in the party. Thirdly, she has removed Sengottaiyan from the race, who was considered to be having a chance of becoming the Chief Minister in the event of Jayalalitha being convicted in the acquisition of disproportionate assets case before the Bangalore Court.) 6. Thirdly, she has removed Sengottaiyan from the race, who was considered to be having a chance of becoming the Chief Minister in the event of Jayalalitha being convicted in the acquisition of disproportionate assets case before the Bangalore Court.) 6. On a reading of the aforesaid portions, this Court is not able to find even an iota of material to show that there is any imputation intending to harm the reputation of Jayalalitha, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on a reading of the entire article, the public could draw an inference that Sengottaiyan was removed from the Ministership only at the instance of Sasikala and this would amount to imputation. 7. This Court is not able to agree with the aforesaid submission, inasmuch as, in the impugned complaint, this aspect has not been put forth at all and what has been put forth has been extracted above. That the complainant cannot build up a case beyond the allegations in the complaint, is trite. Even on a reading of the entire article, this Court is not able to draw such an inference as argued by the learned Public Prosecutor and further, it is not open to this Court to strain the language employed in the article or to read between the lines, for arriving at such an inference. That apart, for maintaining a complaint of defamation via Section 199 (2) to (4) Cr.P.C., the imputation should be in respect of the conduct of the public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The impugned paragraphs extracted above only refer to the gaining of influence by Sasikala in the party affairs after a brief period of hybernation and coming back into the party fold. 8. The fact remains that the whole world knew that Sasikala was ousted from the party on 19.12.2011 and within three months, she was re-inducted into the party and thereafter, certain developments took place, including removal of Sengottaiyan, a Minister and a key functionary, from the party. 9. Be it noted that the Press has got a solemn duty to place all the concatenation of events, both recent past and distant past, concerning political parties and pubic figures, for public consumption and for refreshing the otherwise short public memory. For doing this, if the Press is gagged, democracy in this country will be in utter peril. 9. Be it noted that the Press has got a solemn duty to place all the concatenation of events, both recent past and distant past, concerning political parties and pubic figures, for public consumption and for refreshing the otherwise short public memory. For doing this, if the Press is gagged, democracy in this country will be in utter peril. India is a vibrant democracy and the fourth estate is indubitably an indispensable part of it. If the voice of the fourth estate is stifled in this manner, India will become a Nazi State and the hard labour of our freedom fighters and makers of our Constitution will go down the drain. There may be some occasional transgressions by the Press, however, in the larger interest of sustaining democracy, those aberrations deserve to be ignored. Nobody is invited with platters for coming into public life. Therefore, after voluntarily coming into public life, one cannot be heard to feign sensitiveness and trample the Press for no good reason. This Constitutional Court will be failing in its duty if such attempts by the mighty State are not resisted. 10. At this juncture, the following sagely observation of this Court in R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and another vs. J. Jayalalitha and another [ (2006) 2 M.L.J. 689 ], is worthy of allusion: “29. .... In a free democratic society, those who hold office in Government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind. . . .” In the ultimate analysis, the proceedings in C.C. No.11 of 2012 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, is an abuse of process of law and is accordingly quashed and as a sequitur, these writ petitions are allowed. Costs made easy. Connected M.Ps. are closed.