1. Yesterday, matter was heard at length and during the
course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised
to this Court that petitioner has now deleted media bite and on
his request, matter is posted for today.
2. Today, complainant / respondent no. 3 is present in the
Court and she apprised to this Court that due to the media bite in
social media, her reputation has been tarnished and the
department now initiate a departmental proceeding though the
complainant himself withdraw his complaint. She further
submits that after this media bite, she is receiving several
whatsapp messages.
3. Yesterday, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 3 has placed before this Court Notification dated
25.02.2021 whereby Information Technology (Intermediaries
Guidelines) Rules 2011 were framed by invoking the powers
conferred under Section 87 (2) of the Information Technology Act,
2000. Part III of the said Rules pertains to the code of ethics and
procedure and safeguards in relation to the digital media. Rule 9
of the said Rules reads as under:
4. As it appears from Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, the publisher has
to follow the norms as laid down in the Appendix.
5. Code of Ethics stipulated in Appendix reads as under:
(ii) Programme Code under section 5 of the Cable
Television Networks Regulation) Act, 1995;
(iii) Content which is prohibited under any law for
the time being in force shall not be published or
transmitted."
6. As per Clause (1) of the Code of Ethics, the publisher has to
follow the norms of journalistic conduct of the Press Council of
India published under the Press Council Act, 1978.
7. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3,
has also placed before this Court the Norms of Journalistic
Conduct, 2010. Clause 2 and 3 of the said norms which pertains to
pre publication verification and caution against defamatory
writing are being reproduced herein under:
"2. Pre-Publication Verification
i) On receipt of a report or article of public interest and
benefit containing imputations or comments against a
citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention
its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources-
with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit
his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the
same alongside with due correction in the report where
necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a
footnote to that effect may be appended to the report.
ii) Publication of news such as those pertaining to
cancellation of examinations or withdrawal of candidates
from election should be avoided without proper verification
and cross checking.
iii) A document, which forms a basis of a news report,
should be preserved at least for six months.
3. Caution against defamatory writings
i) Newspaper should not publish anything which is
manifestly defamatory or libellous against any individual /
organisation unless after due care and verification, there is
sufficient reason/evidence to believe that it is true and its
publication will be for public good.
ii) Truth is no defence for publishing derogatory, scurrilous
and defamatory material against a private citizen where no
public interest is involved.
iii) No personal remarks which may be considered or
construed to be derogatory in nature against a dead person
should be published except in rare cases of public interest,
as the dead person cannot possibly contradict or deny those
remarks.
iv) The Press has a duty, discretion and right to serve the
public interest by drawing reader's attention to citizens of
doubtful antecedents and of questionable character but as
responsible journalists they should observe due restraint
and caution in hazarding their own opinion or conclusion
in branding these persons as 'cheats' or 'killers' etc. The
cardinal principle being that the guilt of a person should be
established by proof of facts alleged and not by proof of the
bad character of the accused. In the zest to expose, the Press
should not exceed the limits of ethical caution and fair
comment.
v) The Press shall not rely on objectionable past behaviour
of a citizen to provide the background for adverse comments
with reference to fresh action of that person. If public good
requires such reference, the Press should make pre-
publication inquiries from the authorities concerned about
the follow up action, if any, in regard to earlier adverse
actions.
vi) Where the impugned publication is manifestly injurious
to the reputation of the complainant, the onus shall be on
the respondent to show that it was true or to establish that
it constituted fair comment made in good faith and for
public good.
vii) Newspapers cannot claim privilege or licence to malign
a person or body claiming special protection or immunity
on the plea of having published the item as a satire under
special columns such as 'gossip', 'parody', etc.
viii) Publication of defamatory news by one paper does not
give licence to others to publish news/information
reproducing or repeating the same. The fact of publication
of similar report by another publication does not bestow the
status of accuracy on the charges.
ix) It is necessary that the press realize its responsibility to
the society due to the unique position enjoyed by it in being
able to interact directly with the citizenry and utilize its
advantageous position for the betterment of the society and
the advancement of the country rather than indulging in
giving credence to rumours and sensationalism. It is also
necessary that the press, particularly the small local press,
learn to appreciate the clear distinction between matters of
'public interest' and 'those in public interest'. While
gossips and social dealings may be found to be of interest by
the public but they serve no public purpose or interest and
the press should scrupulously avoid wasting its precious
space on such matters.
x) Insertion of out-of-context, uncalled for and irrelevant
statements likely to malign a person or an organisation
must be eschewed.
xi) Even while a newspaper has the liberty or even duty to
report political developments, that reporting may not be
with angularity. Freedom of Press does not give licence to a
newspaper to malign a political leader or mar his future
political prospects by publishing fake and defamatory
writings.
xii) It must be remembered by the Press that the freedom of
speech and expression enshrined in the democratic set up
and enjoyed by the fourth estate also casts on it a
responsibility. The newspapers are not expected to use it as
a tool by itself creating evidence and later using the
evidence to make false propaganda in its own journal.
xiii) The Press deserves accolades for bringing to light the
inducements offered to influence their reporting and such
exposure will not amount to defamation.
xiv) Locus Standi - In cases involving personal
allegations /criticism, only the concerned person enjoying
the locus standi can move the plaint or claim right to reply.
However a representative organisation of persons attached
to an organisation or a sect / group has the locus standi to
move complaints against a publication directly criticising
the conduct of a leader.
xv) Public Interest and Public Bodies - As a custodian
of public interest, the Press has a right to highlight cases of
corruption and irregularities in public bodies but such
material should be based on irrefutable evidence and
published after due inquiries and verification from the
concerned source and after obtaining the version of the
person/authority being commented upon. Newspapers
should refrain from barbed, stinging and pungent language
and ironical/ satirical style of comment. The attempt of the
press should be to so shake up the institutions as to improve
their working, not to destroy them or the public confidence
in their working or demoralize the workforce. A
corresponding duty of course devolves on them to ensure
that in doing so they present a fair and balanced report,
uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration. The Press
as a custodian of public interest and a protector of its rights
is also expected to bring correct information to its notice so
that it is able to correctly judge those to whom it has
entrusted the responsibility of running the country.
(xvi) The media and the authorities are two very important
pillars of our democracy and for the government to
function successfully in public interest a press as
responsible as watchful is an essential pre-requisite."
8. It is argued on behalf of the respondent no. 3 that all these
norms are statutory in nature but have not been followed by the
petitioner while circulating first media bite in social media.
9. Complainant, who is also present in the Court, has apprised
to this Court that before publishing media bite no attempt was
made by the petitioner to inquire from her to verify allegation of
the complainant Umesh Kumar against respondent no. 3, who is
serving as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Branch at
Kunda, Kashipur.
10. If it so, then it appears to be in complete violation of the
Rules, 2021 particularly, clause 2 of the Norms of Journalistic
Conduct of the Press Council of India.
11. List this case on 16.02.2026.
12. On that date, petitioner and Umesh Kumar shall appear
before this Court. The SHO concerned shall ensure the presence
of Umesh Kumar. The investigating officer of the case shall also
join the proceedings through V.C.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
11.02.2026
SKS
