Chandigarh, Jan. 22 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that a person holding a public office merely feeling offended cannot be the yardstick on which state action is to be measured. "Right of reporting as a part of journalistic freedom of speech and expression has arisen much often for consideration before courts. Much often, criticism and satire is hardly cherished by people holding public office and sometimes, the reactions come forth by way of cyber-bullying, sullying or even silencing the critique and criticism," the bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has said. The court was dealing with a petition by three journalists and an RTI activist, who had sought quashing of a criminal case registered by Ludhiana police for allegedly circulating "objectionable and misleading" content on social media related to the use of a helicopter associated with the Punjab chief minister. The petitioners are Manik Goyal, an RTI activist, and three journalists Baljinder Singh, Maninderjit Singh and Mandeep Singh Makkar. The allegations were that the online posts of these individuals, especially Manik Goyal, allegedly carried distorted, unverified and factually incorrect claims regarding the deployment and utilisation of a helicopter purportedly linked to chief minister Bhagwant Mann during an official foreign visit to Japan and South Korea in December. Multiple persons, including these four, were booked in a case registered on December 12. Their plea was taken up on January 12 and the court stayed further investigation in the FIR. The detailed order was released on Wednesday. The court further added that the yardstick to measure state's action would also not be influenced by the projections sought to be portrayed by the state. "The yardstick always has to be that of ordinary prudence and a direct nexus. A remote possibility of some reaction or motivated artificial inflammation of sentiments or such display shall hold such person liable for such action and the criminal liability would not trickle to the authors," the court remarked, adding that the test of conduct of a reasonable person with objective ordinary prudence also lies on the person who sets the criminal law in motion. "Legal principles do not change on the basis of who the complainant or the accused may be. The uniformity of law and its universal application is what a court is required to do," it further said adding that the court does feel that social media influencers and print/visual media should adhere to the ethics of journalism. They should reflect commitment to truth, accuracy and independent, impartial reporting and not an unfair, motivational and spread of propaganda. ".however, the said aspect is yet to be determined. Issues pertaining to the existence of ingredients for prima facie commission of offence are required to be demonstrated. Continuation of criminal process, in the meantime, would prejudice rights of the aggrieved. The same thus needs to be protected," it said while staying further probe....