Defamation Cases For Reporting Details Of FIR Nothing But Attempt To Stifle Reporter: Bombay High Court

Justice Vinay Joshi quashed an FIR against the Chairman of Lokmat Media Private Limited Vijay Darda and the Editor-in-Chief Rajendra Darda, accused of defamation under section 500 of the IPC for a report published in 2016.

The court observed that journalists wouldn't be able to report till the final outcome of a case if they were barred from reporting on the FIR, which in turn would deprive the public their right to learn about happenings.

"The responsibility of the Editor is to publish true facts and nothing else. The publisher is not expected to investigate the matter and ascertain the truthfulness of the First Information Report before publishing the news item," the bench held.

"Filing complaints about defamation on such news items are nothing but an attempt to shut up and stifle the Reporters /informants and to force them to withdraw the report filed against the persons who are allegedly defamed."

The complainant Ravindra Gupta had alleged that an article published in the Lokmat against him was false and without any verification by the newspaper. Gupta claimed that he was not at the crime scene at the time of the alleged offence and his name was subsequently dropped from the chargesheet.

At the outset, the bench observed that only the Editor of the newspaper can be presumed to know the contents of the paper under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. And once his name is mentioned in the imprint, only he would be responsible for civil and criminal proceedings. However, the editor in this case, Dilip Tikhile, was not made a party to the complaint.

It also held that the Chairman cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence of an employee, in the absence of the specific allegations against him. "In the present case, it is blatantly obvious that there is no allegation against the present applicants that they were having knowledge of the publication of such imputation or that they were directly responsible for the publication of such imputation...By any stretch of imagination, the liability of publication cannot be stretched to the applicants unless a case of conspicuous malice is made out."

Moreover, there was no allegation of reporting colourable, exaggerated or distorted facts and was merely reporting the FIR registered against the complainant and reflected the true gist of the allegations.

"No doubt, publication of news on a rumour or on hear-say information having no iota of truth is fatal to a Journalist. Herein it is not the case that First Information Report was not at all registered or the distorted news item was published," the court observed.

The bench also observed that defamation action about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic setup.

"It is the primary function of the Press to provide comprehensive and correct information, especially when it is brought into the public domain. Freedom of the Press is implied from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In other words, the freedom of making a true report regarding the affairs which are in the public domain is a right, which flows from the freedom of speech. The action of defamation about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic setup," the judge held.

Case Title: Vijay and ors v Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 232 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment