Media, Particularly Individuals In Key Positions, Must Exercise Utmost Caution & Responsibility: SC Quashes Defamation Case Against TOI Editorial Director
The Supreme Court set aside Karnataka High Court’s Order which dismissed Jaideep Bose’s plea to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The Supreme Court quashed the defamation case against Jaideep Bose while observing that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.
The Court set aside the Order of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed the Petition for quashing the defamation proceedings against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.’s ex-Editorial Director Jaideep Bose.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held, “We find it necessary to emphasise that right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is paramount. At the same time, it is reiterated that those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions. The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed.”
Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Pai Amit represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited had filed a complaint against 14 individuals, including directors, editors, and journalists of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. It was alleged that articles published in Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India, and The Economic Times contained defamatory content regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the complainant. The Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused.
The Appellant argued that the complaint did not have any specific allegations against him and failed to establish his role in the publication of the alleged defamatory articles. It was contended that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (the Act), the liability primarily rested with the 'editor' as named in the publication.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate did not conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons, despite the Appellant residing outside its jurisdiction. The Court noted that the complaint relied on self-estimation of reputational damage without any third-party evidence.
The Court held that the articles in question primarily contained statements from experts and did not make direct imputations against the complainant. It emphasised that liability under Section 499 of the IPC required a clear intent or knowledge that an imputation would harm a person’s reputation, which was not established in this case.
The Bench pointed out that the Act imposed a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an editor. “Section 5 of the Act mandates that every newspaper or periodical publication must specify the name of the editor and owner. Section 7 creates a rebuttable presumption that the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper shall be held to be the editor in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of that publication. Since an “editor” has been defined as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the presumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person, who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper,” it remarked.
“However, merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director at the outset,” the Court clarified.
Consequently, the Court held, “With the aforesaid observations, we allow all these appeals and quash the impugned order passed by the High Court and summoning orders as well as the criminal complaint filed by the respondent, as far as the appellants herein are concerned.”
“Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring. This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith.” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Jaideep Bose v. M/S. Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 241)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju; Advocates Aishwarya Kaushiq, Prashant M.S., Rohit Agarwal and Lokesh Aidasani; AOR Ravi Bharuka and Yoginder Handoo
Respondent: AOR Pai Amit; Advocates Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Karishma Naghnoor, Nikhil Pahwa, Kushal Dube, Tathagata Dutta and Abhiyudaya Vats
