Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently allowed an application filed by Aroon Purie, the Chairman and Director of TV Today Network to quash a criminal defamation case against him related to a 2017 article published by Aajtak/India Today about the grant of bail to then-UP Minister Gayatri Prajapati in a minor's rape case.

The case against Purie was filed by a former Uttar Pradesh District Judge, Rajendra Singh. The judge had that in the article various imputations were leveled that Prajapati’s bail was part of a deep conspiracy involving senior judges, massive corruption in the posting of judges in courts, handling sensitive crime and rape cases as well as Mr. Om Prakash Mishra was posted as POCSO Judge on Aapril 7, 2017 when he had just three weeks left for retirement and he was appointed bypassing norms.

The complaint had also contended that the news item implied impropriety in the judicial process, alleging that Judge Mishra, positioned in the sensitive role, subsequently granted bail to Prajapati. The judge had argued that the article led to the retraction of the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to appoint him as a high court judge, raising concerns about his suitability due to the alleged conspiracy related to Prajapati's bail.

In response, Aroon Purie and other India Today network's employees who had been made accused in the proceedings, challenged the defamation case, asserting that the news item was published in good faith based on authentic information from a high court communication to the Supreme Court in May 2017.

They argued that the communication between that high court and the top court regarding Singh's elevation, sensitive in nature, was not part of the case record but had been provided to Singh's counsel in January 2018 without challenge. The substance of the communication indicated a covert investigation into Prajapati's bail and the involvement of senior judges, leading to the Collegium's recommendation retraction.

The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh referred to the Supreme Court's precedent, stating that accurate and true reporting published in good faith does not constitute intent to harm reputation. The court noted that the complainant had not disputed the content of the privileged communication.

Consequently, the single judge bench concluded that Purie's action in publishing the alleged defamatory news item fell under exceptions to Section 499 IPC, specifically Exception (1) regarding truth for public good and Exception (3) regarding expressing opinions on public questions.

Considering these findings, the high court deemed the complaint an abuse of legal provisions and quashed the proceedings, allowing the application by Purie.

Case Title: Aroon Purie v. State of U.P. and Another