Liability of Newspaper Owners in Defamation Cases: Supreme Court Judgment (2017)

Can a newspaper owner be held liable for defamatory content published in their newspaper, even if they are not the editor? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a case involving a Kannada daily newspaper. This judgment clarifies the responsibilities of newspaper owners under Indian law, particularly concerning defamation. The bench comprised Justices J. Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice Chelameswar.

Case Background

The case arose from a news item published on December 16, 2013, in “Jaya Kirana,” a Kannada daily newspaper owned by the respondent, Prakash K. The appellant, Mohammed Abdulla Khan, claimed the news item contained highly defamatory allegations against him.

Following the publication, the appellant filed a police report on December 17, 2013, against the respondent (owner) and the editor of the newspaper. When the police failed to act, the appellant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.)-II, Mangalore. The Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on April 15, 2014, for offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged the Magistrate’s order before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the revision petition on November 6, 2015. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court allowed the petition on November 23, 2016, and quashed the proceedings against the respondent, the owner of the newspaper.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 related to defamation.

• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines defamation. It states that whoever, through words, signs, or visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm or knowing it will harm their reputation, is said to defame that person.
  “Section 499. Defamation. — Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”
• Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for defamation.
• Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the printing or engraving of defamatory matter.
• Section 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 addresses the sale of printed or engraved defamatory material.

The court noted that to constitute defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the imputation must be made with the intention or knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person. The imputation can be made through words, signs, or visible representations, and it can be either made or published.

Arguments

The respondent argued before the High Court that there is no vicarious liability in criminal law. Therefore, the owner of a newspaper cannot be prosecuted for defamation. The respondent contended that the allegations, even if established, could only be sustained against the editor of the newspaper, not the owner.

The appellant argued that the issue was no longer res integra and was covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670. The appellant submitted that the owner could be held liable for defamation.

The High Court distinguished the K.M. Mathew case, stating that it pertained to a managing editor, resident editor, or chief editor, and not the owner of the newspaper. The High Court concluded that prosecuting the owner would lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the following:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the proceedings against the owner of the newspaper.
2. Whether the ratio of K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670 was correctly understood by the High Court.
3. Whether the owner of a newspaper can be held liable for defamation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court discussed the following authorities:

• K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670: This case dealt with the liability of a chief editor for defamation. The Supreme Court clarified that while Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 creates a presumption against the editor, it does not grant immunity to others responsible for publishing defamatory material.
• Khima Nand v. Emperor, (1937) 38 Cri LJ 806 (All): This case discusses the difference between making an imputation and publishing it.
• Amar Singh v. K.S. Badalia, (1965) 2 Cri LJ 693 (Pat): This case also discusses the difference between making an imputation and publishing it.
• The Queen v. Holbrook, L.R. 3 QBD 60: This English case discusses the history of vicarious liability for defamation.
• Ramasami v. Lokanada, (1886) ILR 9 Mad 692: This case held that Lord Campbell’s Act is not applicable to India and that an owner could be acquitted if they entrusted the newspaper to a competent person in good faith.
• Emperor v. Bodi Narayana Rao and G. Harisarvothama Rao, (1909) ILR 32 Mad 338: This case reiterated that the Criminal Law of England is not necessarily the same as the Criminal Law of India.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in distinguishing the K.M. Mathew case. The court emphasized that the K.M. Mathew case clarified that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 does not grant immunity to persons other than the editor if they are responsible for publishing defamatory material.

The Supreme Court did not delve into the issue of vicarious liability, as the respondent did not appear. However, the court stated that the issue of vicarious liability of a newspaper owner requires serious examination in an appropriate case.

The court stated that each case requires a careful scrutiny of various questions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s misinterpretation of the K.M. Mathew case and its failure to properly examine the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings against the owner was made without proper reasoning or consideration of the relevant legal principles. The Court also highlighted the importance of a thorough examination of each case, rather than a casual exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Logical Reasoning

The court’s reasoning was based on the following steps:

1. The High Court did not correctly understand the ratio of K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670.
2. The High Court did not provide sufficient reasoning for quashing the complaint against the respondent.
3. The issue of vicarious liability in criminal law, particularly for defamation, requires serious examination.

The Supreme Court did not accept the High Court’s conclusion that prosecuting the owner would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“The judgment of the High Court is absolutely unstructured leaving much to be desired.”

“Each case requires a careful scrutiny of the various questions indicated above. Neither prosecutions nor the power under Section 482 CrPC can be either conducted or exercised casually as was done in the case on hand.”

“The High Court, in our opinion, without examining the ratio of K.M. Mathew’s case chose to conclude that the decision is distinguishable.”

Key Takeaways

• Newspaper owners can be held liable for defamation if they are responsible for publishing defamatory material.
• The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 does not grant immunity to persons other than the editor.
• The issue of vicarious liability in criminal law for defamation requires further examination.
• High Courts should not casually exercise their power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not casually exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings. The court also clarified that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 does not grant immunity to persons other than the editor if they are responsible for publishing defamatory material. The issue of vicarious liability in criminal law for defamation was left open for further examination in an appropriate case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies that newspaper owners cannot claim automatic immunity from defamation charges. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of facts and circumstances, and set aside the High Court’s order that had quashed proceedings against the owner. This case highlights the importance of responsible journalism and the potential liabilities that come with owning a publication.