Supreme Court Clarifies Defamation Liability for Editors in News Publications: Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1345
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can an Editor-in-Chief of a news magazine be held liable for defamation for an article published in their magazine, even if they did not directly write or oversee the article’s content? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a news article about alleged sexual misconduct by an Indian Foreign Service officer. The court clarified the extent of liability for defamation for editors and other individuals involved in the publication process.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case arose from a news article titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY between April 23, 2007, and April 30, 2007. The article reported that three Indian officials posted at the Indian High Commission in the UK were recalled following allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in visa issuance, and selling Indian passports to illegal immigrants. The article specifically mentioned an Indian Foreign Service officer accused of soliciting sexual favors from a local employee.

The officer, referred to as the “original accused No.12” in the judgment, was working as a ‘Clerk Typist’ in the Consulate General of India, Edinburgh. She filed a complaint on July 10, 2006, alleging sexual harassment by the said officer. This was followed by another communication on March 5, 2007, to the Deputy High Commissioner, High Commission of India, London, alleging continued harassment. The Ministry of External Affairs directed the officer’s recall on March 8, 2007, and placed him under suspension. On March 15, 2007, the complaint was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, who initiated disciplinary proceedings on March 21, 2007.

Following the publication of the article, on May 21, 2007, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a memorandum to the officer seeking an explanation for the allegations of sexual harassment. The officer responded on May 31, 2007. Eventually, on February 19, 2009, the disciplinary authority imposed a 20% cut in the officer’s pension on a permanent basis. This order was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal on March 2, 2010, and by the High Court on July 26, 2011.

On March 24, 2010, the officer filed a complaint against several individuals, including Mr. Aroon Purie (Editor-in-Chief of INDIA TODAY), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (the author of the article), and several public servants, alleging that the article was defamatory. The officer claimed that the accused had committed offenses under Sections 34, 120B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, found sufficient material to proceed against Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), and other accused individuals (A-3, A-4, A-8, and A-12) for offenses punishable under Sections 500 (defamation), 502 (sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Magistrate noted that while the officer was recalled on March 8, 2007, the news article on April 30, 2007, mentioned that the recall was due to a sexual misconduct complaint, even before the officer received a show cause notice on May 21, 2007.

Aggrieved by the summoning order, Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), and public servants from the Ministry of External Affairs (A-3, A-4, and A-8) filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court of Delhi, seeking to quash the summoning order and the complaint. The High Court dismissed all the petitions, stating that the submissions made by the petitioners were not applicable at this stage and that the conduct of the petitioner (A-1) was allegedly responsible for the selection of the articles for publication, and had knowledge of the fact that the publication of an unsubstantiated story will irreparably harm the reputation of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The High Court held that the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties raised disputed questions of fact that could not be examined under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines defamation. Section 499 of the IPC states:

“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 excepted, to defame that person.”

The section further provides several exceptions where such imputations would not amount to defamation.

The Court also considered Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which deals with the presumption of responsibility for the editor of a publication. Section 7 of the 1867 Act states:

“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.”

Additionally, the definition of “Editor” under Section 1 of the 1867 Act was considered:

“Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper.”

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1):

• Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for A-1, argued that as the Editor-in-Chief of INDIA TODAY, the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, would not apply to him but only to the Editor.
• It was submitted that to hold A-1 liable for the article, there needed to be clear allegations of his direct involvement beyond his position as Editor-in-Chief.
• Since no such specific allegations were made, A-1 was entitled to relief.

Submissions on behalf of Public Servants (A-3, A-4, and A-8):

• Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the public servants were not involved in the publication of the article at any stage.
• Their actions were limited to reporting events to higher authorities for appropriate action and were thus protected.
• Their actions could not amount to any offense.

Submissions on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2):

• Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for A-2, adopted the submissions of Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, stating that due care was taken before writing the article, including seeking a response from the concerned officer.

Submissions on behalf of the Officer (Complainant):

• Mr. R. Sathish, learned counsel for the officer, argued that the appellants’ case was at best a claim for the benefit of exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC.
• The High Court had correctly observed that such issues should be considered at the trial stage and not under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether an Editor-in-Chief of a news publication can be held liable for defamation for an article published in their magazine, based on the allegations made in the complaint.
2. Whether public servants who reported the matter to higher authorities can be held liable for defamation.
3. Whether the benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC can be availed of at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed K.M. Mathew vs. K.A. Abraham & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 670]* to clarify that while the presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act applies to Editors, a Chief Editor can be held liable if there are specific allegations of their role in the publication.
• The Court followed Jawaharlal Darda & Ors. Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr. [(1998) 4 SCC 112]* to emphasize that accurate and true reporting of the proceedings of the House, done in good faith, is protected from defamation claims.
• The Court followed Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam [(1999) 3 SCC 134]* to hold that a report made to a superior officer alleging misconduct is protected under Exception 8 of Section 499 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of specific allegations against the Editor-in-Chief (A-1) in the complaint. The Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, applies to the “Editor” and not the “Editor-in-Chief.” The Court also considered the protection afforded to public servants who were merely reporting events to their superiors. The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for specific allegations and the protection of bona fide actions by public servants.

The sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1), the Editor-in-Chief of INDIA TODAY, could not be held liable for defamation based on the complaint. The Court emphasized that the complaint lacked specific allegations against him and that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, does not apply to an Editor-in-Chief. The Court stated, “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.”

The public servants (A-3, A-4, and A-8) were also exonerated, as the Court found that their actions were limited to reporting events to higher authorities and were thus protected. The Court relied on the law laid down in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam [(1999) 3 SCC 134]* in this regard.

However, the Court rejected the appeal of Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), the author of the article, stating that whether his actions were justified would be a question of fact to be determined at the trial stage. The Court noted, “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.”

The Court also clarified that the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC can be considered at the stage of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the facts justify it. The Court observed, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• An Editor-in-Chief of a news publication cannot be held liable for defamation solely based on their position, unless there are specific allegations of their direct involvement in the publication of the defamatory content.
• The presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, applies to the “Editor” and not the “Editor-in-Chief.”
• Public servants who report events to higher authorities in good faith are protected from defamation claims.
• The benefit of exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be considered at the stage of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the facts justify it.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the summoning order and quashed the complaint against Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1) and the public servants (A-3, A-4, and A-8). The Court rejected the appeal of Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2) and directed that his case be considered at the trial stage.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an Editor-in-Chief of a news publication cannot be held liable for defamation solely based on their position, unless there are specific allegations of their direct involvement in the publication of the defamatory content. This clarifies the legal position regarding the liability of Editors-in-Chief and provides guidance on the application of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to public servants acting in good faith and clarifies that the benefit of exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC can be considered at an earlier stage of proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Aroon Purie vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. clarifies the extent of liability for defamation for an Editor-in-Chief of a news publication. The Court held that an Editor-in-Chief cannot be held liable solely based on their position, unless there are specific allegations of their direct involvement in the publication of the defamatory content. The Court also protected public servants who were merely reporting events to their superiors. This decision provides important guidance on the application of defamation laws in the context of media publications and the protection of public servants.