Allahabad HC Refuses Relief to News18 Journalists in IPS Amitabh Yash Defamation Case

The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings against three senior journalists associated with News18, holding that the allegations arising from a 2017 television broadcast require adjudication through trial and cannot be short-circuited under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh rejected the petition filed by the executive editor and two other reporters, affirming the magistrate’s summoning order in the defamation complaint lodged by senior Indian Police Service officer Amitabh Yash.

The case traces back to a news segment broadcast on 20 September 2017 on News18 Punjab/Haryana/Himachal Pradesh concerning the arrest and subsequent release of Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi Ghanshyampuria, identified as the alleged mastermind of the high-profile Nabha jail break. The broadcast carried a ticker and anchor commentary suggesting that the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force’s then Inspector General, Amitabh Yash, had accepted money and released the accused from custody.

Yash, currently serving as Additional Director General, STF and Law & Order in Uttar Pradesh, filed a criminal complaint on the basis that the telecast had gravely harmed his reputation by imputing corruption and misconduct in the discharge of his public duties. The complainant pointed out that although the state government had appointed a high-level inquiry committee to investigate the matter, that inquiry ultimately exonerated him of all allegations.

Acting on the complaint, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 32 in Lucknow, issued summons on 12 December 2018 to the applicants namely Jyoti Kamal (then Editor, News18 Punjab), Shantosh Sharma (then Reporter) and Gaurav Shukla (then Anchor), initiating prosecution under sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to defamation. The journalists challenged the order before the high court, seeking to quash the proceedings as wholly misconceived and without basis.

Before the high court, the applicants argued that the impugned news item was a fair and bona fide journalistic report, reflecting information already in the public domain and carried by multiple national news outlets at the time.

Advocate Nadeem Murtaza, for the applicants, submitted that the broadcast did not directly attribute deliberate wrongdoing to Yash and that the departmental inquiry’s exonerative findings undermined the basis for criminal prosecution. Counsel for the journalists emphasised that different channels had covered the developments and that the News18 telecast was not uniquely defamatory.

In response, Advocate Ishan Baghel, representing Yash, told the bench there was no denial of the publication of the news by the applicants and that the broadcast’s wording, both ticker and spoken, clearly conveyed an imputation of corruption. He also reminded the court that in similar matters involving other channels, including E-24 and Bharat Samachar, high courts had earlier quashed proceedings, but those orders were set aside by the Supreme Court on appeal. Notably, the apex court in March 2024 overturned a high court’s interference in identical proceedings, underscoring that magistrates had applied their minds before issuing summons and that inherent powers under Section 482 should not be exercised at a premature stage.

The high court reiterated that a petition under Section 482 CrPC is not a forum for conducting what it termed a “mini-trial.”

Justice Singh observed that at the stage of quashing, the court cannot weigh evidence, assess credibility, or determine the veracity of the defence’s assertions. The judge took note that the magistrate had recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and the evidence of witnesses under Section 202 before issuing summons, indicating that prima facie a case had been made out.

Court concluded that the allegations were serious and, if proven, could amount to defamation by the respondents, and therefore, required adjudication in a regular trial rather than summary interference by the high court. The petition was dismissed and the trial proceedings were ordered to continue in accordance with law.

Case Title: Jyoti Kamal and Others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and another

Order Date: January 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh