Supreme Court Quashes 2007 Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie
Can Editor In Chief of a publication be held liable for the publication of a defamatory article by another author?
The Supreme Court recently answered the question in the negative. The allegations need to be specific and sufficient against the Editor-In-Chief for him to be liable for any defamatory article.
With regard to the role ascribed to the author, the Court was of the view that the author of the article stands on a different footing.
Whether his act was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial, said the Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit.
The media mogul had approached the top court to quash a case of criminal defamation against him for an article published in India Today in 2007.
The alleged defamatory article against ex-diplomat OP Bhola
The article titled Mission Misconduct had levelled allegations of misconduct against the then deputy consul general in Edingburgh Mr O.P. Bhola. In his news coverage, the journalist claimed the said diplomat had been called back to India and is facing disciplinary action for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee posted in the mission.
Rebutting the strong allegations, Bhola had, back then, said that no charges were communicated to him and he was just asked to come back.
Defamation or not
Often the arguments revolve around the issue of statutory immunity enjoyed by the publication house or the editor-in-chief in criminal defamation cases. For the unversed, section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives instances of what does not fall under the purview of defamation. The 9th exception to section 499 states that it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Editor's role in content selection as per law
Further Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act casts a rebuttable presumption. Accordingly, the editor is deemed to have control over the selection of the matter when published unless there is evidence that proves otherwise.
Alleging Poorie's role in content curation, O.P. Bhola's counsel had previously argued that the former editor-in-chief held the majority of the shares in India Today and must be aware of the kind of monetary value the information holds.
The defence
As per Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, of 1867, normally an editor, the printer can only be prosecuted argued Poorie's Counsel. The petitioner herein is the editor-in-chief and therefore could never be prosecuted. The news item itself shows the petitioner herein is the editor-in-chief and not an editor, he said.
Secondly, the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the news item merely reported the facts and hence it cannot be said to be defamatory. It is argued the facts are accurate and reflect the public record and hence no defamation case can be made out. Reference is made to R.Rajagopal vs.State of Tamil Nadu 1994 (6) SCC 632 wherein the Supreme Court while summarizing the principles in para 26(3) held that in the case of a member of press/media, it shall be enough to prove that he has acted after a reasonable verification of the facts.
What did the Delhi High Court say
Earlier the Delhi High Court had refused to quash the defamation proceeding against India Today Editor in Chief stating that the assertions that the news item merely reported facts which were accurate and reflected public records and cannot be held to be defamatory, could not be accepted.
Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan appeared for Purie. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the public servants named, and advocate Hrishikesh Baruah appeared for the India Today group. Advocate R Sathish appeared for the original complainant.
