The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against several journalists, including Jaideep Bose, Nergish Sunavala, Swati Deshpande, and others, who were accused of defaming M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. through news articles published in The Times of India, The Economic Times, Mumbai Mirror, and Bangalore Mirror in June and July 2014. The court emphasized the critical role of media in a democratic society and reiterated the importance of procedural safeguards in defamation cases.
Background of the Case
The legal battle originated from a private complaint filed on August 22, 2014, by M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. against 14 accused, including journalists and editors of major publications owned by Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (BCCL). The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), alleged that certain news articles had tarnished the company’s reputation by questioning the authenticity of artworks auctioned by it.
The publications appeared between June 27, 2014, and July 20, 2014, in several editions of The Times of India, Mumbai Mirror, Bangalore Mirror, and The Economic Times. The complainant claimed that these articles falsely insinuated that the company was engaged in auctioning counterfeit paintings, thereby damaging its credibility in the art market.
On July 29, 2016, the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused journalists subsequently challenged the proceedings in the Karnataka High Court through Criminal Petition No. 3829 of 2017. However, the High Court, in its order dated June 18, 2024, dismissed their petition while quashing the case against BCCL. The journalists then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
Liability of Editorial Directors and Journalists: Whether an editorial director, who is not the named editor of a publication, can be held criminally liable for defamation.
Freedom of Press vs. Defamation: Whether journalistic reporting on matters of public interest, particularly in the field of art authentication, constitutes defamation.
Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.: Whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedure of conducting an inquiry before summoning accused persons residing outside its jurisdiction.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment, allowing the appeals and quashing the criminal defamation case against the journalists. The key observations made by the court include:
On Procedural Irregularities: The court found that the trial court failed to comply with Section 202 Cr.P.C., which mandates an inquiry before summoning persons residing outside the court’s jurisdiction. It noted that the complainant did not produce any third-party witness to substantiate claims of reputational damage.
On Editorial Responsibility: The bench clarified that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, an editor is legally responsible for the selection of content published in a newspaper. Since Jaideep Bose was the Editorial Director of BCCL and not the editor of any specific newspaper, there was no statutory presumption of his involvement in defamatory content. The court cited K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham (2002) to support its reasoning.
On the Nature of the Articles: The court emphasized that journalistic reporting on an ongoing debate regarding the authenticity of artworks did not, per se, constitute defamation. The articles merely reported on concerns raised by art experts and industry stakeholders, without making direct allegations against the complainant.
On the Role of the Media: In a crucial remark, the court reaffirmed the media’s role in fostering public discourse, stating, “The pen is mightier than the sword. Given its vast reach, a single article can shape public perception, but it must be exercised with responsibility and fairness.”
