Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount, but at the same time, those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc, must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.

"The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses a potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

While quoting Bulwer Lytton, “The Pen is mightier than the sword”, the bench highlighted the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed.

The court made these observations while allowing appeals filed by Jaideep Bose and others associated with the Times of India against the Karnataka High Court's order of June 18, 2024. It quashed criminal complaints filed by M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for procedural irregularities.

The high court had dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellants challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It, however, had quashed the complaint as far as M/s Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd.

The complaint named directors, editors, and journalists, numbering 14 accused persons, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 499 and 500 IPC. It pertained to certain news articles published in various newspapers viz, Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India (Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune Editions), and The Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) on June 27, 2014, June 28, 2014, June 29, 2014, July 06, 2014, July 07, 2014, and July 20, 2014 which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent.

On filing of special leave petitions, the apex court had in 2024 stayed all further proceedings in connection with complaint case until further orders.

Referring to the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the bench pointed out that every newspaper must clearly mention the names of its owner and editor, ensuring transparency in publication. Furthermore, a statutory presumption is cast upon the editor, who is responsible for the selection of content that is subsequently published, making him accountable for the same unless proven otherwise, court said.

Going by the penal provisions on defamation, the court opined, it is clear that defamation under section 499 IPC necessitates both an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and that the imputation must be capable of lowering the reputation of the person in the estimation of others. In other words, the essence of defamation lies not merely in the making of an imputation but in its effect on the perception of the public, thereby impacting the standing of the person in society.

Citing Section 202 CrPC, the court said this provision clearly stipulates that upon receiving a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, the magistrate must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the court. 

"In other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This mandatory requirement of inquiry or investigation was introduced through Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) which came into effect from June 23, 2006 by introducing the words ‘and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction’," the bench said.

Before the court, appellant Bose contended that he was neither the author nor the editor of the news articles in question and his role was merely administrative in nature, with no direct involvement in the publication process. He further stated that there was procedural irregularity in the process of issuance of summons as he resides in Mumbai, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the court, and hence, the magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry by examining witnesses as mandated under Section 202 CrPC.

"It is the editor who plays a key role in the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring that the content published adheres to legal standards, including laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 imposes a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an editor," the bench said.

However, the court said that merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that, unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director at the outset, it said.

In the complaint, the court noted, it was merely alleged that the appellant oversaw the publications. No other averments were made to establish as to how he was responsible for controlling the selection of contents of the newspaper publications.

Furthermore, he is the editorial director of the company and not of the individual newspapers. Thus, in our view, such a broad, general or blanket statement without specific or substantive details cannot justify the issuance of summons, the court held.

Court also noted that the magistrate, without a proper examination and inquiry, proceeded to issue summons to the appellant. The appellant resided in Mumbai, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the concerned magistrate, court highlighted.

"In such a scenario, the Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with section 202(1) CrPC. However, no such inquiry was conducted in the present case. Therefore, considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable against him," the court said.

With regard to appellants in the other appeals, the court found it was evident from the orders of the trial court as well as the high court that not all news articles individually authored by the various accused were considered. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under section 202 CrPC, was clearly not followed. The appellants resided in Mumbai and Kolkata, whereas the complaint was filed in Bangalore, it pointed out. 

Court noted the complainant also failed to produce any witness to prima facie establish that the alleged imputations had lowered their reputation in the estimation of others and the magistrate, after merely reviewing the complainant’s statement, had proceeded to issue summons. 

"Thus, the Magistrate’s order clearly suffers from procedural irregularity," the court said.

Ordinarily, the court pointed out, such irregularities would warrant a remand.

However, in the present case, no material has been produced to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers. At this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed, it said. 

The bench also noted the submissions of the appellants that there was no intent to defame or harm the complainant’s reputation.

To meet the ends of justice, the bench held, "We are inclined to quash the order passed by the High Court as well as the issuance of summons by the Magistrate." Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants are also liable to be quashed, it said.

Case Title: JAIDEEP BOSE VS. M/S. BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED