'Journalist Serve As Independent Monitor Of Power', Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Summons In Defamation Case Against Indian Express Resident Editor, Others

Observing that "journalist serve as independent monitors of power, reporting information for public good and safety," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed summons issued against former editor Vipin Pubby and resident editor Manraj Grewal of Indian Express, in a defamation case.

In 2008, a retired IPS officer Param Vir Rathee had alleged that the newspaper published a defamatory article wherein it was reported that an accused had allegedly confessed before CBI that Rathee had recommended police protection to the accused after taking a bribe from him.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said the reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offence 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."

"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."

The Court further added that to ensure honest and correct reporting of actual events, such journalists require the protection of courts, especially constitutional courts, to enable them to publish news without fear of harmful consequences. “Thus, all courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans.”

It highlighted that the reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudence and reasonableness, and whatever they wrote, they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the summoning order in defamation case under Section 499 IPC against Vipin Pubby, an editor of Indian Express and another plea was filed by the resident editor Manraj Grewal for setting aside the summoning order in the case.

It was alleged that on June 17, 2008, the complainant noticed a news item in Indian Express, "Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection” in which it was reported that Dr. Sandeep Sharma, an accused in the criminal case, had confessed before the CBI that Param Vir Rathee had recommended Sandeep Sharma's police protection after taking a bribe. 

The complainant further submitted that he came to know 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. 

Considering the submissions, the Court observed that a bare reading of the news published in Indian Express points to investigative journalism where the complainant's version was also reflected. The complainant nowhere stated that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld its material aspects, court noted.

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.

“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.

The Court highlighted that, “Journalism is civilization's mirror, and investigative journalism it's x-ray.”

Furthermore, it noted that before the journalist wrote the news, he took the complaint's view into account and mentioned it in the news item, which shows that he 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," it added.

"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," said the bench.

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.”

Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.

P.S. Poonia, Advocate, and Mr. Pulkit Dhanda, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 07

Title: Vipin Pubby v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order