Supreme Court quashes defamation proceedings against journalists in auction controversy: Jaideep Bose vs. M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (2025) INSC 241 (18 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 241

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan

Can a person be prosecuted for defamation based on news articles questioning the authenticity of items in an auction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Jaideep Bose vs. M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited. The court considered appeals against a High Court order that had upheld defamation proceedings against several journalists and editors. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered a judgment that quashed these proceedings, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech and expression while also cautioning the media to exercise responsibility.

Case Background

The case originated from a private complaint filed on 22 August 2014, by M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (“the complainant”) against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and 13 other individuals, including directors, editors, and journalists. The complaint alleged that certain news articles published in various newspapers between 27 June 2014 and 20 July 2014 contained defamatory content regarding the authenticity of paintings to be auctioned by the complainant.

The news articles appeared in publications such as Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India (various editions), and The Economic Times. The complainant contended that these articles damaged their reputation by suggesting that the paintings they were auctioning were not authentic.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Upon receiving the complaint, the trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 14 November 2014. Subsequently, on 29 July 2016, the trial Court took cognizance of the complaint, registered it under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and issued summons to the accused. The case was registered as PCR No.13146/2014 and later as CC No.18491 of 2016, pending before the trial Court.

Challenging the issuance of summons, the accused filed Criminal Petition No.3829 of 2017 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the petition against the appellants but quashed the complaint against M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (Accused No. 1). Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
  • Section 1 (Interpretation Clause): Defines “Editor” as “the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper” and “Newspaper” as “any printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news.”
  • Section 5: Specifies that every newspaper must contain the names of the owner and editor clearly printed, along with the date of publication.
  • Section 7: States that a copy of the declaration attested by the court, or a copy of the newspaper containing the editor’s name, is sufficient evidence that the person was the editor of that issue, unless proven otherwise.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 499 (Defamation): Defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person with the intention to harm their reputation. Explanation 4 clarifies that an imputation harms a person’s reputation if it lowers their moral or intellectual character in the estimation of others.
  • Section 500 (Punishment for Defamation): Prescribes a punishment of simple imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both, for defamation.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 202 (Postponement of Issue of Process): Mandates that a Magistrate, upon receiving a complaint, must conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing process against an accused residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This provision aims to prevent harassment through false complaints.

Arguments

The appellants (the accused journalists and editors) raised several arguments:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: Some appellants argued that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding their role in publishing the alleged defamatory news articles.
• Role of the Editor: It was contended that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the “editor” is responsible for the selection of matter published, and the appellants’ names did not appear as editors in the newspapers.
• Non-compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.: Appellants residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate argued that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not conducted before issuing summons.
• Lack of Essential Ingredients of Defamation: It was argued that the complaint failed to establish reputational harm in the eyes of others, as required under Section 499 IPC.
• Freedom of the Press: Some appellants argued that the articles were based on existing public discourse and did not constitute defamation, and that restricting journalistic expression would be unconstitutional.

The respondent (M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited) argued that:

• The news articles had a serious and adverse impact on the reputation of the company.
• The complaint sufficiently outlined the defamatory nature of the news articles and the appellants’ role in their publication.
• The issuance of summons by the trial Court was consistent with legal principles, as a detailed inquiry into the merits of the case is not required at the stage of cognizance and process issuance.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable against the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose, given his role as Editorial Director and the lack of specific allegations against him.
2. Whether the High Court erred in not considering all news articles individually authored by the various accused.
3. Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was properly followed in issuing summons to the appellants residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, 2002 (6) SCC 670 (Supreme Court of India): Distinguished the responsibility of an editor from other roles in a publication.
• Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, (2013) 3 SCC 697 (Supreme Court of India): Individuals can be proceeded against if specific allegations are made against them.
• Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528 (Supreme Court of India): Elucidated the mandatory requirement of inquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
• Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491 (Supreme Court of India) Exceptions to section 499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.
• Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, (2024) 2 SCC 86 (Supreme Court of India) Exceptions to section 499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.
• Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, 2024 INSC 255 (Supreme Court of India) Constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated.
• M/s.DAG Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s.Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd., 1008/2022 (Supreme Court of India) Similar criminal appeals arising from the complaint filed by the same complainant were allowed.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: Mandates that every newspaper or periodical publication must specify the name of the editor and owner.
• Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867: Creates a rebuttable presumption that the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper shall be held to be the editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that publication.
• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines defamation.
• Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Stipulates that upon receiving a private complaint, 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.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the impugned order passed by the High Court, as well as the summoning orders and the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as far as the appellants were concerned. The Court held that the complaint was not maintainable against the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose, given his role as Editorial Director and the lack of specific allegations against him. The Court also found that the High Court had erred in not considering all news articles individually authored by the various accused, and that the mandatory procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not properly followed.

Treatment of Submissions by the Court

View of Authorities by the Court

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

• K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham [CITATION]*: The Court cited this case to distinguish the responsibility of an editor from other roles in a publication, emphasizing that there is no statutory presumption against an editorial director at the outset.
• Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel [CITATION]*: The Court referred to this case to highlight that individuals can be proceeded against if specific allegations are made against them, even if they do not hold the position of editor.
• Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to elucidate the mandatory requirement of inquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., particularly when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
• Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that exceptions to section 499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.
• Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that exceptions to section 499 IPC can be regarded only at the stage of trial.
• Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that Constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated.
• M/s.DAG Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s.Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd. [CITATION]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that similar criminal appeals arising from the complaint filed by the same complainant were allowed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jaideep Bose vs. M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily revolving around procedural irregularities and the protection of freedom of speech and expression. The Court emphasized the lack of specific allegations against Jaideep Bose, the Editorial Director, and the failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for appellants residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court considered that the news articles were published without a clear intent to defame and that restricting journalistic expression would be unconstitutional.

The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court gave significant weight to the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the adherence to Section 202 Cr.P.C., and the need for specific allegations in defamation complaints. The Court also balanced these considerations with the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression, cautioning the media to exercise responsibility while reporting.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects included the specific roles of the accused, the content of the news articles, and the absence of evidence of actual damage to the complainant’s reputation. The legal aspects involved the interpretation of Section 202 Cr.P.C., Section 499 IPC, and the principles of freedom of speech and expression.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Maintainability of complaint against Jaideep Bose

Flowchart:

Complaint Filed Against Jaideep Bose (Editorial Director)
↓
Are there Specific Allegations against Jaideep Bose?
(NO)
↓
Did Magistrate Conduct Inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.?
(NO)
↓
Complaint Not Maintainable Against Jaideep Bose

Issue: Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Flowchart:

Accused Reside Outside Magistrate’s Jurisdiction
↓
Was Inquiry Conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C.?
(NO)
↓
Did Complainant Produce Witnesses to Establish Reputational Harm?
(NO)
↓
Summons Issued with Procedural Irregularity

Issue: Consideration of All News Articles

Flowchart:

High Court Considered Only One Article
↓
Did High Court Discuss Other News Articles Authored by Accused?
(NO)
↓
High Court Erred in Not Considering All Articles

Key Takeaways

• Specific Allegations Required: Defamation complaints against individuals in media organizations must include specific allegations of their involvement in the publication of defamatory content.
• Section 202 Cr.P.C. Compliance: Magistrates must conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing summons to accused persons residing outside their jurisdiction.
• Freedom of Speech and Expression: The media must exercise caution and responsibility while reporting, balancing the right to freedom of speech and expression with the need to protect individual reputations.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that general allegations against individuals in media organizations are insufficient for defamation proceedings, and strict adherence to Section 202 Cr.P.C. is required when issuing summons to individuals residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. This case reinforces the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression while ensuring that defamation laws are not misused to stifle journalistic expression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaideep Bose vs. M/S. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited quashed the defamation proceedings against the journalists and editors, emphasizing the need for specific allegations, procedural compliance, and the protection of freedom of speech and expression. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible journalism and the need to balance individual rights with the public interest.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
• Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
  • Section 5, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
  • Section 7, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
• Defamation Law
• Freedom of Speech
• Journalism Ethics
• Art Auction Controversy

FAQ

1. What does this judgment mean for journalists?

   This judgment means that journalists cannot be prosecuted for defamation unless there are specific allegations against them and evidence of intent to harm the reputation of the complainant. It reinforces the importance of freedom of speech and expression for the press.

2. What is Section 202 Cr.P.C. and why is it important?

   Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing summons to an accused person residing outside their jurisdiction. This is important to prevent harassment through false complaints and ensure due process.

3. How does this case affect defamation complaints in general?

   This case clarifies that defamation complaints must include specific allegations against each accused individual and demonstrate that the alleged imputations have lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of others. General allegations are not sufficient for prosecution.