SC Hears The Wire’s Plea in Defamation Case, Justice Sundresh Says “Time Has Come to Decriminalise All This”

The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice on the petition and tagged it with similar pending matters, including the ongoing case involving Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

The defamation proceedings against The Wire stem from a report that alleged Professor Amita Singh headed a group of JNU teachers who had prepared a 200-page dossier branding the university as a “den of organised sex racket.” Singh subsequently filed a criminal defamation complaint against the publication.

During the hearing, Justice Sundresh expressed concern over the persistence of such cases, pointedly remarking: “How long will you go on dragging this? Time has come to decriminalise all this.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for The Wire, concurred with the Court’s observation and noted that a similar issue was being examined in Rahul Gandhi’s case. “I completely agree,” Sibal responded when Justice Sundresh suggested that the law on criminal defamation needed to be revisited.

The Bench clarified that the case would proceed along with the pending challenges on similar issues. The matter will be taken up further in due course.

It is to be noted that on May 7, the Delhi High Court had 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.

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.

After considering the submissions made by both parties, the High Court had 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 had 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 had 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.

Case Title: Foundation of Independent Journalism v. Amita Singh

Hearing Date: September 22, 2025

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma