Factually Correct Reporting Cannot Amount To Defamation: Delhi High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick
The High Court held that where the core reporting is based on undisputed facts already in the public domain, allegations of insinuation or discomfort felt by the complainant cannot constitute the offence of defamation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
Reiterating that the essence of criminal defamation is the publication of imputations harming a person’s reputation, the Delhi High Court has held that a journalist cannot be prosecuted for defamation, for publishing factually correct reports, unless the mandatory requirement of establishing loss or harm to reputation in public estimation has been fulfilled.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the defamation complaint and summoning orders issued against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over a 2010 TIME Magazine article discussing scrutiny of NGO funding in India. The criminal complaint was filed by prominent Human Rights Activist, Ravi Nair.
A Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while adjudicating the matter, observed: “The manner in which a journalist or an Article Writer presents the facts, is his skill of writing, but when the reported matter is factually correct, then it cannot be termed as an act of defamation by the Complainant. Here also, the complainant is only trying to build a case of defamation by asserting that there were certain insinuations and innuendos in the Article, but that in itself, cannot be held to be sufficient to make it a case of defamation”.
Advocate Ashwin Vaish appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Advocate R. Gopal represented the respondents.
Background
The complainant, Ravi Nair, filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, alleging that the article authored by Nilanjana Bhowmick and published in TIME contained defamatory imputations concerning him. The Magistrate took cognisance and summoned the accused, prompting a challenge to the summoning order.
In her challenge, the petitioner contended that the article was based on verifiable facts already reported widely across national media and that no false statements were inserted. It was submitted that the article fell squarely within the domain of fair reporting, based on material gathered from lawful sources.
The complainant, however, alleged reputational harm and asserted that the reporters had intentionally negatively portrayed him, urging prosecution for defamation.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, upon examining the material placed on record, noted that defamation requires not only a publication but a false imputation intended to harm reputation. The Court emphasised that multiple exceptions under Section 499 protect fair reporting, including imputation made in good faith for the public good.
The Bench found that the complainant had neither disputed the factual correctness of the information contained in the article nor shown how the reporting was false, malicious, or lacking bona fides. Since factual accuracy was conceded, the foundational ingredient of defamatory falsehood was found to be absent.
The Court further recorded that editorial style, narrative flow, and journalistic presentation are matters of professional skill and cannot, in themselves, be criminalised. It reiterated that journalism undertaken on the basis of facts does not attract penal consequences even if the subject feels aggrieved by the tenor or tone of reporting.
Relying on precedents including R. Rajagopal and Jawaharlal Darda, the Court reiterated that accurate reporting on matters in the public domain does not constitute defamation. The Court emphasised that defamation under Section 499 IPC requires proof that reputation was lowered in the estimation of others. Since no independent witness was examined to prove that anyone viewed Nair negatively due to the publication, the essential requirement of criminal defamation was not met.
The Court found no allegations or material indicating deliberate intention on the part of the journalist to harm the complainant, particularly when the article expressly included his version. Furthermore, holding the complaint filed nearly four years later as time-barred, the Court applied the “single publication rule”, stating that the limitation began from the initial publication date, not continuous online access.
Conclusion
Finding that no offence of defamation was disclosed and that the complaint was barred by limitation, the Delhi High Court quashed the Criminal Complaint and the summoning orders.
The petition was accordingly disposed of in these terms, along with pending applications.
Cause Title: Ms Nilanjana Bhowmick v. Ravi Nair (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10104)
Appearances
Petitioners: Ashwin Vaish, Advocate
Respondent: R. Gopal, Advocate
