On January 5, a single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the summons and all subsequent proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed against Indian Express’ Resident Editor and Dy Resident Editor and noted that “journalism is civilisation’s mirror, and investigative journalism its X-ray”.
Justice Anoop Chitkara further asserted that in the pursuit of uncovering truth and perform their sacrosanct duty towards the citizenry, journalists face many hurdles, calling for all courts to be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans.
In his order, Justice Chitkara held “Journalism is the fourth pillar of any Democracy. As a journalist the reporter’s sacrosanct duty is loyalty towards the citizenry. They serve as independent monitors of power, reporting information for public good and safety, addressing any problems or lacunae in the public system for its effective functioning and immediate redressal. In the fearless pursuit of their duties to uncover the truth and report such facts to the masses through media, these brave journalists do face various hurdles. e.g. pressures from influential parties, groups, or government agencies etc.” (Para 38)
The said summons had been issued against former editor Vipin Pubby and resident editor Manraj Grewal of Indian Express, news dailies Ajit and Ajit Samachar managing editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard, among others based on a case lodged by retired Indian Police Service officer Param Vir Rathee.
Brief details of the 2008 criminal defamation case:
In his defamation complaint in a Gurgaon court in 2008, Rathee had accused 18 major newspapers, particularly mentioning a news item in The Indian Express titled “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection”, which was published on June 17, 2008. The retired IPS officer had alleged that the newspaper published a defamatory article as the same had mentioned that an accused in a criminal case, namely Dr. Sandeep Sharma, had allegedly confessed before the CBI that Rathee had recommended police protection to them after taking a bribe. It had also explicitly carried Rathee’s denial.
The petitioners had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as aggrieved by the dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court of Gurugram, refusing to quash the summons issued in the complaint filed for criminal defamation.
Contentions raised by the parties:
It was the contention of the petitioner that the news report was carried out in good faith in the public interest and based on information provided by CBI officials and their report. The journalist belonging to their publication, had not only interacted with the complainant but also mentioned his viewpoint. Among the contentions of the petitioners, Vipin Pubby and Manraj Grewal through their Advocate Mr Manu K Bhandari, submitted that the complaint has been pending since 2008, and the complainant delayed its proceedings, they were not at fault, and were facing the trauma of criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, it was argued by the complainant-respondent that the newspaper had published a false and defamatory statement. It was also contented by the counsel for the complainant that even after they had realised that said CBI had not arrested Sandeep Sharma, and as such, his confessing before CBI was out of the question, and consequently, there was no occasion to the complainant recommending his police protection, no corrective measure was opted by the petitioner.
Observations by the Court:
In the detailed judgement of Justice Chitkara, it was held that the reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudence and reasonableness, making them entitled to publish whatever they wrote under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the judgement, the bench wrote “The reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 IPC because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudency and reasonableness, and whatever they wrote, they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 39)
In addition to this, the Court observed that from a bare reading of the investigative journalism report published in Indian Express shows that the complainant’s version was also reflected in it. The court pointed that in regards to this, the complainant had nowhere stated that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld its material aspects. Justice Chitkara further added that the complainant did not plead in the complaint or establish in his testimony in the preliminary evidence any reasons or objectives for any oblique motive, malice, ill-will, mala fide intention of the petitioner, or intention to defame him.
In its judgement, the court noted “There is a conspicuous silence about it in the complaint, the statement before the court, and the reply filed to this petition. The following news extracts corroborate the unbiases and point out that the reporting had mentioned and highlighted the complainant’s response and the supporting version of the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula,” the Court added. (Para 23)
Noting that the journalist had taken the complaint’s view into account before publishing the report and had mentioned it in the news item, the court observed that it depicted the journalists adhered to the ethical standards of reasonableness and impartiality, which are key to journalism.
“One of the foundational responsibilities of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it with caution while not distorting or manipulating any facts. The respective journalist cross-checked the information, ascertained it, and explicitly mentioned the complainant’s version to rule out whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies or rumors,” the judgment stated added. (Para 24)
In the same para, the bench held that the accurate reporting by the journalist, by employing due care and caution, provides the court with no reason to not accept it as discharge of their burden. In the judgment, the court noted “This cross-checking and accurate reporting of the complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties. What more can be expected from a journalist? The reporting itself proves by a preponderance of probability of due care and caution, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted as the discharging of their burden by the petitioner under S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” (Para 24)
Consequently, the Court opined that, “the Indian Express, its reporter, and its Editors are entitled to benefit under the first and the ninth exceptions to S. 499 IPC, and the petitioner has discharged his primary burden by demonstrating the contents of the news report itself and is entitled to the benefit of the first and ninth exception of S. 499 IPC.” (Para 24)
With this, the single-judge asserted that courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of journalists, and that in the “fearless pursuit of their duties”, brave journalists face pressures from influential parties or government agencies.
Decision of the Court:
The court stated that the reporter and the newspaper accused of criminal defamation did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The Bench added that “The reporter of Indian Express had explicitly mentioned the complainant’s denial and the corroboration of such denial from the SP Panchkula. A wholesome and complete reading by an ordinary prudent person would neither discredit nor lower the complainant’s image. However, if the witnesses read this news with coloured spectacles, the report cannot be made liable for such misunderstanding.” (Para 33)
Furthermore, the court held that even after the full reading of the restrictions are imposed, then it would be averse to the freedoms guaranteed to us. Bench held in its order that, “A complete reading of the news, which contained the complainant’s rebuttal, his version, the version of the police, can be stated to have been published in good faith and discharge of their functions in a democracy, and if restrictions are created to publish such news, it would be just like killing a mockingbird.” (Para 45)
The court observed that neither the Indian Express nor its Editor (Petitioner) can be held responsible for the subsequent news reports published in other newspapers. With this, the bench of the High Court quashed the summons and all subsequent proceedings as well as the previous judgment passed in the criminal revision by the lower court.
The complete judgment can be read here:
Related:
Delhi: Protest meeting on journalists rights and democratic rights
Stop treating journalists like terrorists, media unions tell government as the 17th Lok Sabha begins