The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a summoning order in a defamation case filed by a JNU professor against the digital news platform 'The Wire' and its journalist, holding that the Magistrate's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
The matter arose from a complaint filed by a JNU professor who alleged that a defamatory article published by "The Wire" imputed her involvement in a controversial dossier describing the university as a "Den of Organised Sex Racket." The professor claimed that the article and subsequent online commentary severely damaged her professional reputation.
The complainant, a professor and chairperson at JNU, filed a complaint alleging that she had been defamed by an article authored by one of the petitioners and published by "The Wire." She alleged that the content falsely linked her to a dossier containing derogatory remarks about JNU. According to her, the defamatory content was widely shared and commented upon on social media, further amplifying the harm. She supported her claims through oral testimony and statements from other academics and alumni who stated that their perception of her had changed after the publication.
The petitioners contended that the article merely reported on a press conference at which the dossier had been released, and the complainant herself was part of the panel. They argued that no specific imputation was made by them and that the publication was based on verified information. It was also argued that the Magistrate erred by not issuing notice to them under Section 223 of the BNSS before summoning them, thereby violating their right to be heard.
Further, it was submitted that the complainant had suppressed her communications with the journalist and the editorial response, both of which established that due diligence was undertaken before publishing the article. The petitioners claimed that allowing such prosecutions would have a chilling effect on press freedom.
The Court, while dismissing the petition, observed, "In the present case, it cannot be said that the Ld. Magistrate has mechanically passed the summoning order. On the contrary, the summoning order is a reasoned order, passed after due consideration of the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant."
The Court emphasised that the Magistrate had sufficient material before him, including testimonies and documentary evidence, to prima facie proceed with the complaint. The Court clarified that the requirement under Section 223 BNSS does not mandate a pre-summoning notice to accused persons, and the procedural objections raised were without merit.
The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Magistrate's summoning order dated 13.01.2025. The Court held that the order was well-reasoned and based on adequate material, and therefore, there was no ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the BNSS.
Picture Source :
