Delhi HC Rejects The Wire Editor’s Plea Against Summons in Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a plea moved by the editor of the digital news portal The Wire, seeking quashing of summons issued in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Amita Singh.

A bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the matter.

The former JNU professor, Amita Singh, had filed a complaint against the editor of The Wire regarding the publication of an article which allegedly implied that Singh had prepared a dossier depicting JNU as a den of organised sex racket.

Singh, who is also the Chairperson of the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG) at JNU, claimed that the article tarnished her reputation and led to professional setbacks. She added that the article had been circulated widely, which resulted in her becoming the target of a hate campaign.

Back in 2017, the trial court had issued summons against the accused persons in the present case. These orders were later challenged before the Delhi High Court, which quashed them in March 2023.

Singh later moved the Apex Court challenging the Delhi High Court order. The top court had then set aside the order while observing that the High Court should not have quashed the summons at the summoning stage without proper material on record.

Thereafter, the matter was returned to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. Fresh summons were issued by the magistrate in January.

The petitioners had then filed a plea challenging the trial court’s summoning order before the Delhi High Court.

During the proceedings, the Wire and its editor invoked Section 223 of the BNSS, which states that a Magistrate shall not take cognisance of an offence on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. It was contended that they merely reported the proceedings of the press conference and the contents of the Dossier.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court held that a Magistrate must examine the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant before arriving at any conclusion regarding defamation.

On the other hand, Amita Singh contended that BNSS cannot be invoked in the present petition for the reason that the said complaint was filed in the year 2016, and the first summoning order was made in 2017. Singh added that the subsequent orders passed by the High Court and the Apex Court were in continuation of the proceedings initiated in 2017, and therefore, the provisions of BNSS could not apply.

After considering the submissions made by both parties, the court said, "It is evident from the above narration that the Complaint had its genesis in the year 2016 and it was pending before the Apex Court on 01.07.2024 on which date the BNSS was made applicable."

The High Court opined that if a case or legal proceeding had already started under the old law (CrPC) before the BNSS came into force, then the old law would continue to apply to that case. The court went on to reject the petitioner’s argument that there was no complaint pending after it was dismissed by the High Court in March, and therefore, the BNSS should apply.

Terming the argument as specious, the Court reiterated that in the case of an appeal or revision, it is in continuation of the original proceedings. The summoning order in the present case emanates from the complaint filed in the year 2016.

Therefore, the Court held that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would apply in the present case and that, according to these provisions, no prior notice was required before issuing the summoning order.

Having found no merit in the plea, the Court accordingly dismissed it.

Case Title: Foundation for Independent Journalism v. Amita Singh and connected matter