Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal challenging Karnataka High Court’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s petitions against initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 499 and 500 of Penal Code, 1860 by the Trial Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s order as well as summons issued against the appellant. However, the Court reiterated its emphasis on the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution being paramount. The Court said 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 power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed”.
Background:
The respondent filed a private complaint against the appellants pertaining to allegedly defamatory news articles published in various newspapers viz., Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India (Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune Editions), and The Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent.
The Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same for the offences under sections 499 and 500 IPC and issue summons. Challenging the issuance of summons, the appellants filed Criminal Petition before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. After due contest, the High Court dismissed the petition as against the appellants herein.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court took note of the statutory landscape. It was pointed that the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 states that every newspaper must clearly mention the names of its owner and editor, ensuring transparency in publication. Furthermore, a statutory presumption is cast upon the editor, who is responsible for the selection of content that is subsequently published, making him accountable for the same unless proven otherwise.
Furthermore, defamation under section 499 IPC necessitates both an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and that the imputation must be capable of lowering the reputation of the person in the estimation of others. In other words, the essence of defamation lies not merely in the making of an imputation but in its effect on the perception of the public, thereby impacting the standing of the person in society.
Taking note of Section 202 of CrPC, the Court said that the provision clearly stipulates that upon receiving a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused, if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
The Court noted that one of the appellants (A2) is the Editorial Director of the company and other appellants are authors of the alleged defamatory news articles published in various newspapers. The Court stated that A2 stands on a different footing from the other accused. He is serving as the Editorial Director of the company, which is the owner of all the newspapers in question.
The Court stated that it is the editor who plays a key role in the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published adheres to legal standards, including laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 imposes a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an editor. Since an “editor” has been defined as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the presumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person, who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, merely because the 1867 Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director at the outset.
The Court relied on Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, (2013) 3 SCC 697, the Court stated that1867 Act does not recognise any other legal entity viz. Chief Editor, Managing Editor, etc. for raising a presumption, such individuals can still be proceeded against, but only when specific allegations are made against them. In the present case, the complaint merely alleges that A2 oversaw the publications. No other averments were made to establish as to how A2 was responsible for controlling the selection of contents of the newspaper publications. Furthermore, as already stated earlier, A2 is the editorial director of the company and not of the individual newspapers. Thus, such a broad, general or blanket statement without specific or substantive details cannot justify the issuance of summons.
The Court further stated that it is evident from the orders of the trial Court as well as the High Court that not all news articles individually authored by the various appellants were considered. While passing the impugned order, the High Court referred only to one article authored by A4 and neither took into account nor discussed the other news articles authored by the remaining appellants. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under section 202 Cr.P.C., was clearly not followed. The Appellants viz., A8, A9, A10, A12 and A13 reside in Mumbai / Kolkata, whereas the complaint was filed in Bangalore. The complainant failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish that the alleged imputations had lowered their reputation in the estimation of others and the Magistrate, after merely reviewing the complainant’s statement, proceeded to issue summons. Thus, the Magistrate’s order clearly suffered from procedural irregularity.
Ordinarily, such irregularities would warrant a remand. However, in the present case, the auction was conducted on 27-06-2014 and the complaint was filed on 22-08-2014. No material has also been placed 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. 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.
In its concluding remarks the Court reiterated that given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring. 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.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
