Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a set of two applications filed by editors and others working for The Tribune (English) and The Punjabi Tribune, seeking quashing of a defamation case filed against them for publishing Punjab’s Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s statement about an AAP MLA in 2019, a Single Judge Bench of Tribhuvan Dahiya, J., allowed the applications, holding that there was no allegation of the complainant that the present accused had the intention to harm his reputation in any manner, or that they had the knowledge or reasons to believe that it would harm his reputation. Further, no material had been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the accused had reported or published the news to harm the complainant’s reputation, or knew or had reason to believe that it would cause harm to his reputation.
Background
In 2019, Bhagwant Singh Mann, the then convener of Aam Aadmi Party (‘AAP’) in Punjab and a Member of Parliament (‘MP’) from Sangrur, held a press conference stating that the complainant, the then AAP Member of Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) from Mansa, got a huge amount of money from Congress party and would be appointed as Chairman of the Punjab Pollution Control Board. The news item to that effect was published in different newspapers.
The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) against Bhagwant Mann, the press reporters, and the Editors of those newspapers where the aforementioned statement was published. This included the present accused namely Rajesh Ramachandran, Editor of ‘The Tribune (English)’, Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh, Editor of ‘The Punjabi Tribune’, and two more accused who worked for the aforesaid newspapers. It was alleged that the accused had published false allegations against the complainant, who never received the amount as alleged, only to harass, humiliate and defame him.
The Trial Court ordered a police investigation wherein it was found that due to the publication of the said news, the complainant’s reputation had been lowered. Further, no apology was tendered by Bhagwant Mann to the complainant, and a non-cognizable offence was made out.
After considering the allegations levelled in the complaint and the preliminary evidence, the Trial Court summoned the accused to face trial. It was concluded that the news item was prima facie defamatory in nature. Despite having knowledge or reason to believe that such imputations against the complainant would harm his reputation, it was printed and published in their newspapers by the petitioners which constituted sufficient ground to summon them to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC.
Aggrieved, the accused filed the present applications.
Analysis
Upon perusal of Section 499 of the IPC, the Court noted that Explanation 4 provided that no imputation can be said to harm a person’s reputation unless, in the estimation of others, it directly or indirectly lowers the character of that person. The First Exception to Section 499 of the IPC (‘the exception’) provided that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person and it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Public good was a question of fact to be established by way of evidence.
Noting the facts, the Court stated that merely because the accused accurately reported the allegations in the newspapers, would not bring them within the ambit of the exception unless it was established that the imputation to the complainant’s character and conduct was true and it was in public good to publish the same. The Court added that these facts were a matter of trial. At this stage, there was nothing on record to even prima facie establish that the imputation was true, and its publication was for public good. The Court also said that it was not the case of the accused persons either that the imputation was truthful.
While referring to Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. (2010) 6 SCC 243, the Court reiterated that public good can only be established by leading evidence regarding the nature of imputation made, the circumstances in which it came to be made, the status of the person who made the imputation, the status of the person against whom the imputation was allegedly made, and other relevant facts. Therefore, the present accused were not entitled to protection under the First Exception to Section 499 of the IPC.
Reiterating that to constitute ‘defamation’ under Section 499 of the IPC, the allegation must have been made with the intention to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the person’s reputation, the Court stated that in the present case, there was no allegation of the complainant that the present accused had the intention to harm his reputation in any manner, or that they had the knowledge or reasons to believe that it would harm his reputation. Further, no material had been brought on record to even prima facie indicate that the accused had reported or published the news to harm the complainant’s reputation, or knew or had reason to believe that it would cause harm to his reputation.
Consequently, the Court stated that the Trial Court’s reason that the present accused communicated the imputation for further printing and publishing despite having knowledge or reason to believe that such an imputation would harm the complainant’s reputation, was without any evidence. Thus, in the absence of any material indicating the complicity of the present accused in the case, the Court held that there was no occasion to summon them to face trial. The order was, accordingly, groundless and unsustainable as the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, did not constitute the offences under Section 499 to 502 of the IPC. The Court held that summoning the present accused to face trial would be an abuse of the process of Court and a travesty of justice.
In this regard, the Court placed reliance on N. Ram, Editor-In-Chief and Publisher of ‘The Hindu’ v. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 8920, wherein similar allegations of defamation were made against the editor of a national newspaper, and the Magistrate’s order summoning the accused to face trial under Sections 499 to 501 of the IPC was set aside for the reason there was no intention to defame the complainant in publishing the news.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the applications, thereby quashing the complaint and all the consequential proceedings.
[Rajesh Ramachandran v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 1791, decided on 26-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Manu K. Bhandari, Rohit Kataria, and Arjun Sawhni
For the respondent: AAG of Punjab Satjot Singh Chahal and P.S. Dhaliwal
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
