AROON PURIE versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 311, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
AROON PURIE
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1853-1856 of 2022)
OCTOBER 31, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
complaint – In the instant case, a news item titled ‘Mission
Misconduct’ was published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY
stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office,
three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK
had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations
of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of
Indian passports to illegal immigrants – Allegations were levelled
against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for
soliciting sexual favours from a local employee – The article further
stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary
action and when contacted said official denied the charges – After
the publication of the Article, memorandum dated 21.05.2007 was
issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis of the
complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was sought as to
why disciplinary action should not be initiated against said officer
“for sexual harassment of a woman at work place” – The said officer
filed response and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered penalty
– Order imposing penalty upheld by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and also by High Court – In the meantime, complaint filed
by said officer
against various persons A-1 (Editor-in-Chief), A-2
(Author of the Article), and public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 and
other accused under various sections including ss.34, 120 B, 405,
468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of the IPC – Magistrate found
sufficient material to proceed against accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12
for the commission of offences punishable under ss.500, 502 read
with s.120 B of the IPC – Petition filed under s.482 was dismissed
by High Court – On appeal, held: There was nothing specific
attributed to A-1 therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts
committed by the author of the article, namely, A-2 – With regard to
the role ascribed to A-2 whether what he did was an act which was
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 311
311
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at
the stage of trial – Insofar as the public servants were concerned,
they were not primarily responsible for the article and their
responsibility, if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported
something touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their
capacity as public servants, reported something to their seniors,
their actions are completely protected – Appeals insofar as A-1 and
the public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 are concerned is allowed and
the summoning order is set aside and complaint lodged against them
is quashed – The appeal preferred by A-2 is rejected.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Though the presumption under Section 7 of Press
and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is available with regard to
the Editor, even a Chief Editor can be proceeded against if the
facts so justify. In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit
of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC can be extended and it
is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception
can only be afforded at the stage of trial. Considering the assertions
and allegations made in the complaint, there nothing specific has
been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief. He cannot, therefore, be
held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article,
namely, A-2. The allegations made in the complaint completely
fall short of making out
any case against A-1. [Paras 21, 22,
23][324-D-H]
2. With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated
at this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a
different footing. Whether what he did was an act which was
justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at
the stage of trial. [Para 24][325-A]
3. Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are
not primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility,
if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported something
touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as
public servants, reported something to their seniors. Going by
the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande
v Uttam, their actions are completely protected. [Para 25][325-
B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
6. In the circumstances, the appeals insofar as A-1 and the
public servants A-3, A-4 and A-8 are concerned is allowed and
the summoning order is set aside, as well as, Complaint No.584/
1/2010 lodged against them is quashed. However, the appeal
preferred by A-2 is rejected. [Para 26][326-C-D]
K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC
670 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 662; Jawaharlal L Darda
& Ors. v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr.
(1998) 4 SCC 112; Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v.
Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134 : [1999] 1 SCR 580 - relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 662
relied on
Para 16
(1998) 4 SCC 112
relied on
Para 19
[1999] 1 SCR 580
relied on
Para 20
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1853-1856 of 2022/
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2021 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.3492 of 2013 and Crl. M.A.
No.12820 of 2013, Crl. M.A. No.18912 of 2014 and Crl. M.A. No.12577
of 2020.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.1857-1860, 1861-1863 of 2022.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bahti, ASG, S.V.Raju, Sr. ASG,
K.V. Vishwanathan, Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Hrishikesh Baruah,
Pranav Jain, Sivagnanam K., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Rajat Nair,
Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Rupesh Kumar, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Zoheb Hossain,
Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, G.S. Makker, Advs. for the Appellant.
R. Sathish, Shery George Cherian, Mohandas K.K., Rajesh
Kumar, Mathen Joseph, Mrs. S. Geetha, S.S. Ahluwalia, Amitesh Gaurav,
Advs.
for the Respondents.
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. These appealschallenge the common judgment and order dated
07.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
M.C. Nos. 3492 of 2013, 4636 of 2013 and 1762 of 2014 filed by Mr.
Aroon Purie; Mr. Parampreet Singh Randhawa &Ors.; and Mr. Saurabh
Shukla, respectively.
3. A news item1 titled‘Mission Misconduct’ was publishedin the
news magazine INDIA TODAY (for the period of 23.04.2007 to
30.04.2007)stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign
office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at
UK had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations
of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian
passports to illegal immigrants. The Article also mentioned that the
allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service
posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee. The
Article further stated that said officer,now back in India, was facing
disciplinary action and when contacted said official denied the charges.
4. It appears that original accused No.12 whose identity is not
being disclosed, was working as a ‘Clerk Typist’ in the Consulate General
of India, Edinburgh and she had filed a complaint before the Consel
General alleging sexual harassment at the hands of said officer. The
complaint was made on
10.07.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 10.07.2005
in certain documents placed on record). This was followed by another
communication dated 05.03.2007 to the Deputy High Commissioner, High
Commission of India, London alleging continued sexual harassment at
work place at the instance of said officer. The record shows that the
Ministry of External Affairs by the order dated 08.03.2007 directed that
said officer be recalled and that said officer be placed under suspension.
On 15.03.2007 the complaint filed by accused No.12 was forwarded to
the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, which issued an order
on 21.03.2007 stating that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated
against said officer and that said officer was placed under suspension.
These developments were prior to the publication of the Article.
1 "the Article” for short.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
5. Some of the developments which have occurred after the
publication of the Article included issuance of a memorandum dated
21.05.2007 by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis of the
complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was sought as to why
disciplinary action should not be initiated against said officer “for sexual
harassment of a woman at work place”.Response was filed by said
officer on 31.05.2007 and finally by order dated 19.02.2009, disciplinary
authority passed an order imposing cut of 20% in pension allowable to
said officer on permanent basis. The order of the disciplinary authority
was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 02.03.2010 and
also by the High Court vide order dated 26.07.2011.
6. In the meantime, on 24.03.2010,Complaint No. 584/1/2010 was
filed by said officer against various persons including Mr. Aroon Purie
(A-1), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), Mr. Parampreet Singh Randhawa
(A-3), Mr. Sharat Sabharwal (A-4), Mr. Ashok Kumar Mukherji (A-8)
and other accused. It was submitted inter alia that the Article was
defamatory and as such the accused be proceeded against for having
committed offences punishable under various sections includingSections
34, 120 B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 ofthe Indian Penal Code,
18602. Some of the averments made in the complaint were as under:
“… Accused No. 01 herein, Mr. AroonPurie, Editor-in-Chief of
the newsmagazine titled INDIA TODAY published by the
corporate entity
titled “LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD” with its
registered office at “1-A HAMILTON HOUSE, CONNUGHT
PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001” for printing and publishing, in its
printed issue dated 30/04/2007, a false story of sexual harassment
against the Complainant, a senior-level officer of the Ministry of
External Affairs (now retired), based on unsubstantiated,
unverified, fabricated and malicious information, having been
written and filed by the said Newsmagazine’s Correspondent Mr.
Saurabh Shukla, Accused No. 02 herein, in complicity with and at
the behest of Accused Nos. 03 to 12, named hereunder, as well
as splashing the false and defamatory story all over the world
through the misuse of the internet, and the World electronic
network, as defined in the law of information technology, with the
permanent availability, till date, of the scandalous/defamatory
material on the Internet vide its website www.indiatoday.com
2 “IPC”, for short.
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
causing complainant’s defamation, grave loss and injury of his
personal and social reputation, mental torture, agony, pain and a
steep deterioration of his health.
03. That this complaint is limited to the totally false, fabricated,
unsubstantiated unverified, malicious and defamatory story written
and filed by Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Accused No. 2, the correspondent
of the weekly newsmagazine titled INDIA TODAY, whose
reports, writings and activities are under the control and supervision
of Mr.Aroon Purie, Accused No. 1, the Editor-in-Chief of the
newsmagazine INDIA TODAY, who exercised full control on
the selection of the said defamatory story in the newsmagazine
INDIA TODAY’S issue dated 30th April, 2007, contents of which
were read world wide and were also splashed on the internet vide
website www.indiatoday.com. The defamatory story is still
continuing as part of the archives of the said website
www.indiatoday.com and, thus, the defamation of the complainant
and the damage and loss caused to his reputation is continuing till
the date of lodging this report for action against the offenders and
the guilty.
***
***
***
06. That it is clear from the facts narrated in the 20-page enclosure
to this complaint that the defamatory publication was the
handiwork of Accused nos. 03 to 12, acting with common intention,
to brief the correspondent. Accused No. 02, Mr. Saurabh Shukla,
of the newsmagazine INDIA TODAY about the false
complaint
of sexual harassment by Accused No. 12, a local employee of the
Consulate General of India at Edinburgh to defame the applicant
through the media and the criminal role played by each of them,
at the relevant time, warrants a thorough investigation by the law
enforcement agency for appropriate action as may be deemed fit
and proper within the parameters of law as laid down in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, and, once the charges against them are
framed, in terms of the appropriate sections of the Indian Penal
Code.
***
***
***
15.That for their criminal acts of omission and commission, the
high-ranking officers and middle-level officials allowed themselves
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
to be misused and through the common intention of harming and
defaming the applicant through leaking the false, fabricated and
cooked up information in the media – vide the published article in
the weekly newsmagazine INDIA TODAY dated 30/04/2007 and
its splashing through internet through their website
www.indiatoday.com the false and unsubstantiated allegation of
sexual harassment against the complainant even before any show
cause notice was issued to the complainant by the Ministry of
External Affairs and thus caused the Complainant grave loss of
reputation and defamation.
The complainant then prayed for reliefs as follows:
“(1) To take cognizance of the offences committed and admit this
complaint against accused persons arrayed as Accused Nos. 01
to 12 in this complaint, record the statements of the witnesses
whose names and statuses are listed in the enclosures and summon
the accused persons, who may be put on trial and punished in
accordance with law;
(2) To invoke its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and order investigation by police authorities,
who has the necessary infrastructure for this purpose, under
Sections 34, 120B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, SOU S 502 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 65, 66 and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 against the accused for initiation
[sic] of criminal proceedings and trial before this Hon’ble Court;”
7. Therole ascribed to each of the accused was summed up by
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New
Delhi vide order dated 20.04.2013 as under:
“9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further submitted that
while accused No.1 and 2 are the Editor in Chief and
Correspondent of India Today who are directly responsible for
the publication of the defamatory story against the complainant.
The remaining accused persons i.e. accused No.3, 4, 8, 12 were
in conspiracy with accused No.1 and 2 and were instrumental in
the publication of the impugned story which was based on a false
complaint filed by accused No.12 in the office of Indian High
Commission at London. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has
argued that involvement of accused No.3,4,8,12 is established from
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the fact that although the complainant had been simply recalled
from his then place of posting at Edinburgh vide order dated
08.3.2007 and it had not been mentioned in the said order that any
complaint filed by accused No.12 against the complainant was
pending investigation or that said complaint was he reason behind
premature recall of complainant Om Prakash Bhola. However,
the news article dated 30.04.2007 had mentioned that the
complainant had been recalled from his place of posting in
Edinburgh due to pendency of a complaint of sexual misconduct
made against him by a local employee. It has been argued on
behalf of the complainant that although the complainant was served
with the show cause notice. That is memorandum on 21.05.2007
by the Ministry of External Affair whereby he had been asked to
explain the allegations made against him by accused No.12.
However, the news report was published prior to even the service
of the said show cause notice upon him. Therefore, the staff of
India Today News Magazine could not have had the knowledge
about the pendency of the complaint of A12 against the complainant
even before the service of show cause notice upon the complainant
that is on 30.04.2007, the date of publication of alleged news report
although the complainant had been served with the show cause
notice to explain allegations of sexual misconduct made against
him by accused No.12 after a lapse of about 21 days from
the
date of publication of the said news report i.e. on 21.5.2007.
8. The Metropolitan Magistrate found sufficient material to
proceed against Accused 1,2,3,4,8 and 12 for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 500, 502 read with Section 120 B of the IPC.
The operative part of the order was:
“After considering the materials placed on record by the
complainant and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
complainant in the light of the aforecited observations made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decided case of Balraj
Khanna &Ors. vs. Moti Ram 1971 SCC (Crl) 647, Smt. Nagawwa
vs. Veraana Shivallngappa Konjaligi & Ors. 1976 SCC (Crl) 507
and M.N. Damani, vs. S.K. Sinha and other 2001 Cr. L.J. 2571
SC, I am of the considered opinion that the material on record is
prime facie sufficient to proceed against the accused number 1,
2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 be accordingly summoned on filing of PF on
05.07.2013.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
319
9. Being aggrieved by the aforestated summoning order, A-1, Editor
in Chief of INDIA TODAY news magazine, preferred Criminal M.C.
No. 3492 of 2019 while A-2, the author of the Article preferred Criminal
M.C. No.1762 of 2014 and public servants from the Ministry of External
Affairs preferred Criminal M.C. No.4636 of 2013; all under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733 seeking quashing of the
summoning order dated 20.04.2013 as well as Complaint No.584/1/2010
filed by the officer in question.
10. These three petitions were taken up together by the High
Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the High Courtdid
not find any ground to interfere. It, therefore, dismissed all the petitions.
During the course of its judgment, the High Court observed:
“28. The ingredients of section 499 IPC clearly point out towards
the imputation published in any form which also include newspaper.
In case the petitioner is seeking the protection of an exception
under Section 499 IPC that stage is yet to come, meaning thereby
the submissions made by the petitioners are not applicable at this
stage. The conduct of the petitioner, since was allegedly responsible
for selection of the articles for publication and had knowledge of
the fact the publication of an unsubstantiated story will irreparably
harm and damage the reputation of the complainant/respondent
No. 2, still went ahead and got the article published as a chief
editor on 30.04.2007. …
35. Thus,
the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties
raise disputed question of facts and cannot be dwelled into by this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
36. At this stage we need to see only the contents of the complaint.
The evidence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.”
11. We have heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel
for A-1,Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India appearing for public servants, namely;A-3, A-4 and A-8 and Mr.
Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for A-2; while the submissions on
behalf said officer i.e., the original complainant were advanced by Mr.
R. Sathish, learned counsel.
12. It is submitted by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel
that A-1 has been Editor-in-Chief of the news magazine INDIA TODAY;
3 “the Code”, for short.
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of
Books Act, 18674 would get attracted in case of an Editor and not with
respect to an Editor-in-Chief. It is further submitted that in order to
make A-1 liable for the Article, the involvement of A-1 beyond the mere
allegation about the capacity held by him as Editor-in-Chief, had to be
made with clarity. There being no such allegation or averment, A-1 was
entitled to the relief as prayed for.
13. Ms. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted
that the public servants were not involved with the publication of the
Article at any stage. Whatever actions the public servants had taken,
were in the nature of due and prompt reporting of events to the higher
authorities, so that appropriate action could be taken by such authorities.
The acts committed by the public servants would thus be fully protected
and cannot amount to commission of any offence.
14. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for A-2 has sought to
adopt the submissions of Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel
appearing for A-1 and submitted that due care was taken before writing
the Article including asking said officer for his response.
15. Mr. R. Sathish, learned counsel for said officer has submitted
that at best, the case pleaded by the appellants would be one claiming
benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499, IPC and as observed by
the High Court, the
proper stage to go into such issues would be at the
stage of trial and not through petition under Section 482 of the Code.
16. In K.M. Mathew vs. K.A. Abraham & Ors.5, the appellant in
the lead matter was the Chief Editor of Malayalam Manorama. Relying
on Section 7 of the 1867 Act, it was contended on his behalf that there
being another person, who was an Editor of said publication, said Editor
alone could be charged for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC in
view of the statutory presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act. The
submission that because of non-mentioning of “Chief Editor” in Section
7, said appellant would be entitled to the relief, was rejected by this
Court, observing, inter alia, that the complainant had specifically alleged
that said appellant had knowledge of the publication and that he was
responsible for such publication. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16 of
the decision are as under: -
4 “1867 Act”, for short.
5 (2002) 6 SCC 670.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
“8. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
reads as follows:
“7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence.—
In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the
production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested
by the seal of some court empowered by this Act to have the
custody of such declaration, or, in the case of the editor, a copy
of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of
the editor shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be
sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall
be subscribed to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper,
as the case may be that the said person was printer or publisher,
or printer and publisher (according as the words of the said
declaration may be) of every portion of every newspaper
whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the newspaper
mentioned in the declaration or the editor of every portion of
that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced.”
9. The expression “editor” has also been defined in Section 1 of
the Act as under:
“1. (1)
*
*
*
‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of the
matter that is published in a newspaper:”
10. It is also relevant to quote Section 5(1) of the Act:
“5. Rules as to publication of newspapers.—No newspaper
shall be published in India, except in conformity with the rules
hereinafter laid down:
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3,
every
copy of every such newspaper shall contain the names of
the owner and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy
and also the date of its publication:
(2) *
*
*”
xxx
xxx
xxx
14. A conjoint reading of these provisions will go to show that in
the case of publication of any newspaper, each copy of the
publication shall contain the names of the owner and the editor
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
who have printed and published that newspaper. Under Section 7
of the Act, there is a presumption that the editor whose name is
printed in the newspaper as editor shall be held to be the editor in
any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that publication and
the production of a copy of the newspaper containing his name
printed thereon as editor shall be deemed to be sufficient evidence
to prove that fact, and as “editor” has been defined as the person
who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a
newspaper, the presumption would go to the extent of holding that
he was the person who controlled the selection of the matter that
was published in the newspaper. But at the same time, this
presumption contained in Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption
and it will be deemed as sufficient evidence unless the contrary is
proved. Therefore, it isclear that even if a person’s name is printed
as editor in the newspaper, he can still show that he was not really
the editor and had no control over the selection of the matter that
was published in the newspaper. Section 7 only enables the court
to draw a presumption that the person whose name was printed
as editor was the editor of such newspaper, if the publication
produced in the court shows to that effect.
15. The contention of the appellants in these cases is that they
had not been shown as Editors in these publications and that their
names were printed
either as Chief Editor, Managing Editor or
Resident Editor and not as “Editor” and there cannot be any
criminal prosecution against them for the alleged libellous
publication of any matter in that newspaper.
16. The contention of these appellants is not tenable. There is no
statutory immunity for the Managing Editor, Resident Editor or
Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of
any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise
control. In all these cases, the complainants have specifically
alleged that these appellants had knowledge of the publication of
the alleged defamatory matter and they were responsible for such
publication; and the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of the
offence held that there was prima facie case against these
appellants. It was under such circumstances that the summonses
were issued against these appellants.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
17. It is thus clear from this decision that though the presumption
under Section 7 is available with regard tothe Editor, even a Chief Editor
can be proceeded against if the facts so justify. In the concerned cases,
there were specific and sufficient allegations about the roles played by
said Chief Editor and other similarly situated persons from the connected
matters.
18. We now turn to the question: whether the benefit of any of the
exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC can be availed of and on the strength
of such exceptions, the proceedings can be quashed at the stage when
an application moved under Section 482 of the Code is considered?
19. In Jawaharlal Darda & Ors. Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao
Kapsikar & Anr.6, the reporting made by a newspaper about the
proceedings in the Legislative Assembly touching upon the issues of
misappropriation of Government funds meant for certain projects, was
the subject matter of complaint alleging defamation. The decision shows
that the article being accurate and true reporting of the proceedings of
the House, which was reported in good faith in respect of conduct of
public servants entrusted with public funds intended to be used for public
good, the protection was extended and the power under Section 482 of
the Code was utilised. Paragraph 5 of the decision is as under: -
“5. It is quite apparent that what the accused had published in its
newspaper was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of
the Assembly.
Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by
the preliminary enquiry made by the Government. If the accused
bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published
the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to
harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect
of public conduct of public servants who were entrusted with
public funds intended to be used for public good. Thus the facts
and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were
published for public good. All these aspects have been overlooked
by the High Court.”
20. Similarly, in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam7, a
reporting made to a superior officer alleging misconduct on the part of
complainant was taken to be completely protected by exception 8 to
6 (1998) 4 SCC 112.
7 (1999) 3 SCC 134.
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Section 499 of the IPC and the proceedings were quashed. The relevant
portion from paragraph 7 of the reported decision is as under: -
“7. … Under such circumstances the fact that the accused persons
had made a report to the superior officer of the complainant alleging
that he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which
is the gravamen of the present complaint and nothing more, would
be covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Penal Code,
1860. By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition,
we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made
out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to
face trial or even to approach the Magistrate afresh for
reconsideration of the question of issuance of process would not
be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered
opinion, this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of
process and the proceedings itself. …”
21. It is thus clear that in a given case, if the facts so justify, the
benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended and
it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only
be afforded at the stage of trial.
22. Similarly, the law laid down in K.M. Mathew8, which has
subsequently been followed, is to the effect that though the benefit of
presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act is not applicable so far as
Chief Editors or
Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the matter would be
required to be considered purely from the perspective of the allegations
made in the complaint. If the allegations are sufficient and specific, no
benefit can be extended to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
Conversely, it would logically follow that if there are no specific and
sufficient allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of
the fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or
Editor-in-Chief.
23. In light of these principles, if we consider the assertions and
allegations made in the complaint, we find that nothing specific has been
attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief. He cannot, therefore, be held liable
for the acts committed by the author of the Article, namely, A-2. The
allegations made in the complaint completely fall short of making out
any case against A-1.
8 supra at footnote No.5.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
24. With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated at
this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a different
footing. Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not
would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial.
25. Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are not
primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility, if at all, is
only to the extent that they either reported something touching upon the
complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as public servants, reported
something to their seniors. Going by the law laid down by this Court in
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande9, their actions are completely
protected.
26. In the circumstances, we accept the appeals insofar as A-1
and the public servants (A-3, A-4and A-8) are concerned and set aside
the summoning order, as well as, quash Complaint No.584/1/2010 lodged
against them. We,however, reject the appeal preferred by A-2.
Ordered accordingly.
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of.
9 Supra at footnote No.7.
AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI]