Summary
A retired Foreign Service officer filed a criminal defamation complaint over a 2007 India Today article reporting his recall from the UK over a local employee's sexual-harassment complaint. He named the Editor-in-Chief, the reporter and officials of the Ministry of External Affairs. The magistrate summoned them and the Delhi High Court refused to quash. The Supreme Court quashed the complaint against the Editor-in-Chief and the officials. The Section 7 presumption of the Press and Registration of Books Act applies to the "editor". A Chief Editor can be prosecuted only on specific allegations of his role, and there were none. The officials had merely reported the complaint to superiors, which Exception 8 to Section 499 protects, and exceptions can be applied under Section 482 where the facts justify. The reporter's appeal failed; whether his conduct was justified is for trial.
Issues
- Whether an Editor-in-Chief can be prosecuted for defamation absent specific allegations of his role, given that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 applies to the editor.
- Whether the benefit of an exception to Section 499 IPC can be extended at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867The presumption applies to the person named as editor; a Chief Editor has no immunity but can be prosecuted only on specific and sufficient allegations of his role, and absent them no presumption operates against him. (¶¶ 16, 17, 22, 23)
- Section 499, Exception 8, Indian Penal Code, 1860Officials who reported the employee's complaint to superiors in their capacity as public servants were completely protected. (¶¶ 20, 25)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where the facts justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 may be extended and proceedings quashed without awaiting trial. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Sections 500 and 502 read with 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The summoning for these offences was set aside for the Editor-in-Chief and officials but left to proceed against the reporter. (¶¶ 8, 26)
Held
- Though the Section 7 presumption does not apply to an Editor-in-Chief, he may be proceeded against on specific allegations; here nothing specific was attributed to him, so he could not be held liable for the reporter's article. (¶¶ 17, 22, 23)
- It is not a rigid rule that the benefit of an exception to Section 499 can be given only at trial; it may be extended under Section 482 where the facts justify. (¶ 21)
- The public servants were not responsible for the article and had at most reported the complaint to their seniors, which is fully protected; the reporter's case stands differently, and whether his act was justified is a question of fact for trial. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeals of the Editor-in-Chief and the three public servants allowed and the summoning order and Complaint No. 584/1/2010 quashed against them; the appeal of the reporter dismissed.