The Supreme Court has said persons working in key positions in the media must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions and observed the right to freedom of speech and expression was paramount.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan reiterated that the power of the media in shaping public opinion was significant and the press possessed the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed.

The bench's observation came when it quashed a defamation case against English daily Times of India's editorial director and other journalists, who were accused of publishing alleged defamatory contents over the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by Bid & Hammer - Fine Art Auctioneers.

"We find it necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions," the bench said in its February 18 judgement.

The top court quoted English writer Bulwer Lytton as saying, The pen is mightier than the sword.

Given the vast reach, the court said, a single article or report could resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments.

It has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring, it added.

"This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith," said the bench.

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the journalists against a Karnataka High Court order, which dismissed their petition challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them.

The were facing charges of under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC.

The complainant (art auction house) alleged that the defamatory news item that was printed, published and circulated by all the accused persons had caused readers to view the complainant with suspicion and also fostered an unjustifiable and unfounded public opinion that its works offered for sale through public auctions could be fake.

The top court however observed procedural irregularities in the magistrate's summoning order and said the complainant failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish the alleged imputations had lowered its reputation.

"No material has also been placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers," it said.

The bench added, "Irrespective of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed.