HC draws line between factual reporting & defamation, quashes case against newspaper editor
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Sep 10
A newspaper could not be prosecuted for defamation merely because a person is unhappy with a report, if the publication is based on facts that are true and the person’s version has also been sought and published, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held.
In an important ruling concerning the freedom of the press, Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed criminal proceedings against Anil Soni, editor of Divya Himachal, observing that there was no material to suggest that the newspaper had deliberately attempted to tarnish the complainant’s reputation.
The proceedings originated from a report concerning Praveen Kumar Saini, who had been elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Sadarpur while continuing to serve as a Home Guard. A defeated candidate had questioned his eligibility to hold both positions, following which Divya Himachal published a report highlighting the issue.
Saini objected to the report, claiming that it gave a false impression that he was illegally holding the office of Pradhan. He maintained that he had already obtained a No Objection Certificate from the competent Home Guards authority permitting him to contest the Panchayat election.
A criminal complaint was subsequently filed against the newspaper correspondent, editor and others under Sections 501, 502 and 120-B of the IPC. The trial court took cognizance and eventually framed charges against the accused on March 3, 2023.
The editor approached the High Court challenging the proceedings.
The High Court examined the circumstances in which the report was published and found that the core fact reported by the newspaper was undisputed—Saini was a Home Guard and had simultaneously been elected Panchayat Pradhan.
Also Read
Interim bail to YC Bains in defamation case; Police to press remand in another case
More significantly, the Court noted that the correspondent had approached Saini for his response before publication. His explanation regarding the No Objection Certificate was thereafter published by the newspaper.
The newspaper subsequently carried another report clarifying Saini’s position and referring to the permission granted to him by the Home Guards authorities.
Justice Sharma therefore rejected the allegation that publication of the original report, in the circumstances, amounted to defamation.
“Since news item, which is being claimed to be defamatory, was based upon true facts,” the Court observed, adding that the complainant’s clarification had also been sought and published.
The Court also found no prima facie material establishing the editor’s presence at the press conference or his involvement in any conspiracy to defame the complainant.
Holding that there was no sufficient basis for continuing the criminal prosecution, the High Court termed its continuation an abuse of the process of law.
The Court accordingly quashed the complaint and the order framing charges against Anil Soni, bringing the criminal proceedings against him to an end.
The judgment reinforces an important principle for journalism: a factual report does not become defamatory simply because the subject of the report finds its publication inconvenient or damaging to his reputation, particularly when his version has been fairly sought and published.
About the Author
