Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie, Former India Today Chief Editor

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi granted relief to Aroon Purie, founder-director of India Today in defamation suit. The petition was filed by Aroon Purie challenging the criminal defamation complaint filed over a 2007 news article "Mission Misconduct" in India Today magazine. However, the court did not grant relief to the author of the news article.

Pronouncing the verdict today, the bench said that it has allowed the appeal of Purie.

The news article in question reported about the allegations against the then Indian deputy consul general in Edinburgh, O.P. Bhola. The Article reported that–

"Allegations of soliciting sexual favour leading to a probe which revealed financial irregularities and fudging of bills. Consequently, the official is back in India and is facing disciplinary action."

The special leave petition was filed against the refusal of the Delhi High Court to quash a criminal defamation complaint and summoning order against Aroon Purie in connection with an article published in India Today magazine in 2007. While issuing notice on the petition in August 2021, the Court had stayed the proceedings against Purie.

Before the High Court, Aroon Purie contended that as per Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, normally an editor, printer can only be prosecuted. As he is the editor-in-chief, he could never be prosecuted. Rejecting this contention, Justice Yogesh Khanna observed:

"The argument per Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 normally an editor can only be prosecuted cannot be adhered to. In K.M.Mathew vs. K.A.Abrahem and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2989, wherein the complainant has alleged either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for publishing defamatory matters in respect of newspaper publication and in none of these cases the Editor had come forward and pleaded guilty to the effect he was the person responsible for selecting the alleged defamatory matter published, the Supreme Court held it was a matter of evidence in each case and if the complaint is allowed to proceed only against the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper against whom there is a statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act and in case such editor succeeds in proving that he was not the editor having control over the selection of alleged libelous matter published in the newspaper, the complainant would be left without any remedy left to redress the arguments against the real culprits."

CASE TITLE: AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5115­-5118/2021