The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a petition seeking to quash the summoning order issued against him in the complaint filed for criminal defamation. The court ruled that the petitioner did not commit any offence under section 499 IPC, as they demonstrated restraint and adhered to journalistic principles, ensuring due care, caution, and reasonableness in reporting the news and emphasized the importance of safeguarding journalists in their pursuit of truth as the fourth pillar of democracy.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is the editor (Chandigarh) of “The Indian Express” against whom the respondent had filed a complaint for criminal defamation. As per the complaint, it has been alleged that a news item was published in the Indian Express with the topic: “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection” in which it was reported that an accused has confessed to CBI that the respondent has taken bribe from him to provide police protection and the respondent contends that content was defamatory and factually incorrect and intentionally made to lower his credit as a police officer and caused irreparable loss/damage to the complainant’s reputation as the respondent is an honest IPS Officer. The magistrate ordered to summon the accused i.e. petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed this criminal revision petition seeking to quash the summoning order and to set aside the dismissal of criminal revision.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the news report was carried out in good faith in the public interest and based on information provided by CBI officials and their report and their journalist had not only interacted with the complainant but also mentioned his viewpoint and neither the newspaper, its reporter, nor the petitioner had made any personal or biased comments. It is further contended that the petitioner resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate before whom the complaint was filed and as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 202 CrPC was not complied with, the order and dismissal of revision should be set aside on this ground alone.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the newspaper had published a false and defamatory statement and the media must publish reports after verifying their correctness, as any false publication may affect the character and credibility of any respectable person in society and despite the clarificatory news published in the Times of India, the petitioner took no corrective measures. It is further contended that the Magistrate had issued a summons after being fully satisfied and following the procedure under Section 202 CrPC as the magistrate had examined six witnesses, had gone through the evidence, found sufficient prima facie material, and applied his mind.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that a bare reading of the news published in Indian Express points to investigative journalism where the complainant's version was also reflected and the complainant did not plead in the complaint or establish in his testimony in the preliminary evidence any reasons or objectives for any oblique motive, malice, ill-will, mala fide intention of the petitioner, or intention to defame him.
The court further observed that one of the foundational responsibilities of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it with caution while not distorting or manipulating any facts. The respective journalist cross-checked the information, ascertained it, and explicitly mentioned the complainant’s version to rule out whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies or rumours. This cross-checking and accurate reporting of the complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties and the reporting itself proves by a preponderance of probability of due care and caution and the petitioner discharged the burden under S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The court stated that Journalism is the fourth pillar of any Democracy and as a journalist, the reporter’s sacrosanct duty is loyalty towards the citizenry. They serve as independent monitors of power, reporting information for public good and safety, addressing any problems or lacunae in the public system for its effective functioning and immediate redressal. In the fearless pursuit of their duties to uncover the truth and report such facts to the masses through media, these brave journalists do face various hurdles, e.g., pressures from influential parties, groups, or government agencies, etc. To ensure honest and correct reporting of actual events, such journalists require the protection of courts, especially constitutional courts, to enable them to publish news without fear of harmful consequences. Thus, all courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans.
The court held that the reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offence under section 499 IPC because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Vipin Pubby vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case No.: CRM-M No. 39604 of 2018 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Rajat Gautam, Mr. P.S. Poonia, Mr. Pulkit Dhanda
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
