Supreme Court Rejects Ex-UP Judge's Defamation Plea Against Media Over Reports Alleging Corruption Behind Bail Granted To Politician

The Supreme Court today dismissed pleas filed by a former Uttar Pradesh District Judge against media outlets and senior journalists over the publishing of news reports in 2017, wherein allegations of corruption and impropriety in the judicial process were levelled against him.

The matter was listed before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which refused to interfere with Allahabad High Court's orders, by which the defamation case proceedings against the media entities and journalists were quashed.

Background

To recap, Gayatri Prajapati, a former Minister in the Samajwadi party-led UP government, was accused of rape in 2017. Subsequent to arrest, he moved a bail application which came to be decided in his favor by an additional sessions judge, during the pendency of investigation.

This grant of bail gave rise to speculations of judicial impropriety, with certain media outlets publishing news reports where it was alleged that the grant of bail to Prajapati was part of a deep conspiracy involving senior judges, including petitioner judge-Rajendra Singh (former District Judge, Lucknow), as the outcome of Prajapati's bail plea was pre-decided.

As per allegations, three advocates, who were office-bearers of the concerned Bar Association, entered a deal with the petitioner judge to have the judge who granted bail (an Additional District and Sessions Judge set to retire in 3 weeks) posted to the concerned court, in exchange for Rs.10 crores (of which Rs.5 crores were shared by the advocates and Rs.5 crores by the petitioner judge and the judge who granted bail).

Defamation Complaint

Aggrieved by these news reports, the petitioner judge filed defamation complaints against media organizations, their management and news anchors. These included - Aajtak.in, Amar Ujala, IndiaTVNews.com, Faye D'Souza (former executive editor of Mirror Now), Aroon Purie (Chairman and Director of TV Today Network Ltd), Mohit Grover (former Senior Sub-Editor with aajtak.in), Shobhana Bhartia (chairperson and editorial director of HT Media), Sukumar Ranganathan (Editor-in-Chief of Hindustan Times), Supriya Prasad (associated with Aajtak), Rahul Shivshankar (former editor-in-chief at Times Now), Shashank Shantanu (News editor, PTI), Adil Zainulbhai (chairman of Network18 Group), etc.

In the complaint, it was alleged that the news items tarnished the petitioner judge's image as they implied that he engaged himself in irregular practices by purportedly posting Mishra to a sensitive POCSO Court in exchange for monetary considerations.

Further, he added, the news items concerned insinuated impropriety in the judicial process, as they suggested that Mishra, having been placed in the above position, granted bail to Prajapati.

It was also the petitioner's grievance that the publication of the said articles resulted in the retraction of the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to appoint him as a Judge of High Court.

Proceedings before Allahabad High Court

Challenging the defamation complaint proceedings as well as summoning orders, the media organizations and journalists moved the Allahabad High Court. It was their primary contention that the impugned news items were published without any mens rea, only in good faith based on authentic information, i.e., one communication of the High Court to the Supreme Court dated 3rd May 2017.

It was vehemently asserted that the substance of the aforementioned communication indicated that, at the behest of the then Chief Justice of the High Court, a covert investigation was undertaken regarding the grant of bail to Prajapati and the purported involvement of senior judges, including the petitioner.

Petitioner-judge, on the other hand, contended that the alleged letter was a privileged communication between two Constitutional Institutions and the media persons were liable to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 for publishing confidential communication between the authorities.

It was also argued that the news items were published by the news portals and other persons without verification and while doing so, they failed to comply with the norms of Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards prepared by the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, New Delhi.

Impugned Decision

On perusing the material, the High Court noted that the content of the privileged correspondence between the High Court and Supreme Court, upon which the alleged defamatory news items were based, was not denied by the petitioner.

It opined that the action of the media persons in publishing the alleged defamatory new items was squarely covered under Exception (1) [Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published] & (3) [Conduct of any person touching any public question] to Section 499 IPC (Defamation).

For context, the First exception to section 499 states that it is not defamation to impute anything true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Further, the Third Exception to this provision states that it is not defamation to express in good faith, any opinion, whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct.

Ultimately, the High Court was of the view that the complaints in question were nothing but sheer abuse of the legal provisions and no offence, as alleged, could be said to be made out. Accordingly, the defamation proceedings were quashed.

Against the quashing of the criminal proceedings, petitioner-judge approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: RAJENDRA SINGH Versus SHOBHANA BHARTIA AND ORS., Diary No. 14723-2024 (and connected cases)

Click here to read/download order