Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition revolving around publication of two news items in the paper Greater Kashmir regarding allegations of selling the land belonging to DAV School to a private party, the Bench of Rahul Bharti, J.*, dismissed the petition stating that prima-facie the impugned articles, which were too loose ended, seemed to scandalise the situation rather than enlighten the public about the same.
It was further pointed out that Greater Kashmir is a popular newspaper and the impugned news articles condemning the DAV School management will obviously leave the public with a prima-facie impression that the DAV Management has acted as if “fence eating the crop”.
Background: The news items concerning the alleged illegal land deal were published in Greater Kashmir. The respondent acting in his purported capacity as Chairman of the Management Committee of DAV Public Secondary School, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar came forward with a criminal complaint filed under Section 500 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) alleging that the two news items are damaging and defamatory to the reputation of the DAV Management in administration of the school as an institution and its premises as property.
The Trial Court held that there was prima facie case for taking cognizance and issuance of process to the Editor, Printer/Publisher of the newspaper daily Greater Kashmir and Author of the news article and, accordingly directed issuance of process against the petitioners.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated issuance of process, the petitioners knocked the doors of the High Court with the instant petition.
Court’s Assessment: The Court noted that S. 500 of RPC penalizes a person who defames another and what constitutes defamation itself has been elucidated in Section 499 of RPC.
The Court pointed out that Section 499 thoughtfully correlates the word “imputation” through a spoken or written words which has the intent of harming or having the potential to harm, with respect to the reputation of a person against whom the spoken or written words have come into picture. Furthermore “person” as defined in Section 6(11) of RPC includes any Company, or Association, or Body of Persons whether incorporated or not.
Taking note of the afore-stated definition of “person”, the Court pointed out that the Management Committee of an Educational Institution can also reckon itself to be a victim of defamation at the hands of a person who comes forward with any publication or oral representation bearing imputation intending to harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of Management Committee of a well-respected Educational Institution.
Examining the news articles, the Court noted that the intent and import from the articles is as if the management of the DAV Trust had sold out the school premises which is housed on a Govt. granted land and for that purpose a figure of Rs. 13 crores as price fetched, gets mentioned in the news items but without any corresponding reference to the basis on which the allegations were stated. In such circumstances, surely the reputation of the Management Committee of the DAV Institution comes under bad light in the eyes of the readers/consumers of the news items.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that there was no reference in the article as to any particular Govt. record vis-à-vis the alleged sale of the school premises that too on the quoted amount of Rs. 13 crores.
The Court observed that the two news articles were too loose ended and prima-facie the articles leaned more towards scandalizing rather than on apprising and enlightening the public about state of facts. Therefore, the Court found the petitions to be misconceived and directed the Trial Court to resume the trial of the petitioners.
[Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo v. Tej Krishan Ganjoo, CRM (M) No. 634 of 2019, decided on 19-04-2024]
*Order by Justice Rahul Bharti
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioners- Navyug Sethi, Advocate
Respondents- CM Koul, Sr. Advocate with AR Bhat, Advocate