Delhi High Court Quashes Summoning Order Against The Wire’s Editors In Criminal Defamation Case By Ex JNU Professor
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday quashed a summoning order issued by a trial court in 2017 against The Wire’s Editor and Deputy Editor in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed the order passed by a metropolitan court on January 07, 2017, summoning The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday quashed a summoning order issued by a trial court in 2017 against The Wire’s Editor and Deputy Editor in a criminal defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Amita Singh.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani quashed the order passed by a metropolitan court on January 07, 2017, summoning The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha in Singh’s criminal complaint.
In her complaint filed in 2016, Singh had referred to an article written by Mahaprastha in April 2016 titled “Dossier Calls JNU "Den of Organised Sex Racket"; Students, Professors Allege "Hate Campaign.”
Singh had claimed that the publication imputed that she prepared a dossier allegedly depicting JNU is a “Den of Organised Sex Racket”.
The complaint alleged that the Editor did not verify the authenticity of the Dossier and used it for monetary benefits of its magazine, thereby defaming Singh’s reputation. She also alleged that Mahaprastha wrongly used her name in the Dossier.
Perusing the extract of the criminal complaint, Justice Bhambhani said that there is nothing that could be taken to be defamatory against Singh.
“…. the aforesaid caption only says that the dossier called JNU a “den of organised sex racket”, but nothing in the extract says anything against the respondent herself, much less anything that could be taken to be defamatory of the respondent,” the court said.
Noting that the publication was not before the Magistrate in any admissible form, the court said that while the trial court correctly appreciated the position of law, it erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of oral evidence in substitution of the electronic record.
“It is also noticed, that even assuming that the subject publication could have been read in evidence, all that was stated in the article was that the respondent had led a team of persons, who had compiled a dossier, which dossier purported to expose certain wrongdoing at JNU. The subject publication did not say that the respondent was involved in any wrongdoing; nor did it speak of the respondent in any derogatory, derisive or denigrating terms,” it said.
Justice Bhambhani further observed that mere interpretation, inferences and conclusions drawn by the Singh’s witnesses cannot have been the basis for summoning the two individuals.
“On a plain, objective and careful reading of the extract of the subject publication as contained in the criminal complaint, it appears that the controversial dossier exposes wrongful activities that it says are going-on within the university campus; and that the respondent was leading a team of persons who compiled the dossier. At the risk of repetition, the subject publication nowhere says that the respondent is involved in the wrongful activities; nor does it make any other derogatory reference to her in connection therewith. This court is unable to discern therefore, as to how the subject publication can be said to have defamed the respondent,” the court said.
Title: THE WIRE THROUGH ITS EDITOR & ANR. v. AMITA SINGH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 275