Delhi High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former GGSIPU Dean, Says Accusations Were Made To Authorized Person In Good Faith

The issue had arisen when the complainant/respondent No.1, who was an Assistant Professor of Law at GGSIPU, filed a complainant under Section 499 read with Section 500 IPC against Dr Gupta, based on information received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding letters written by her to the Vice Chancellor of the University.

In the said letters, Dr Gupta had statedly used the words “mischief” and “nuisance” in connection with the complainant.

Initially having dismissed the complaint, the Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter by the Sessions Court. Ultimately, cognizance was taken and summoning order issued against Dr Gupta to face trial under Section 500 IPC.

Aggrieved, she filed a petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order.

Pithily put, Dr Gupta's case was that no offence of defamation was made out as the subject letters were not in public domain. Moreover, no intention of defaming the complainant could be culled out from the averments in the letters.

She averred that the communications made by her to the Vice Chancellor were under her official capacity, informing about the complainant's working in the University and calling for action against his misconduct. Thus, the summoning order was passed mechanically.

On the other hand, the complainant's case was that the subject letters were defamatory in nature. As per claims, Dr Gupta bore ill-will towards him because he had challenged her appointment vide a Public Interest Litigation, wherein a Division Bench reportedly asked Dr Gupta to resign if she was not able to work.

The complainant also pled that publication of defamatory imputations under Section 499 read with Section 500 IPC would include communication of defamatory imputations to any person other than the defamed person.

Allowing Dr Gupta's plea, Justice Amit Sharma said that the subject letters were written by her in her capacity as Dean of USLLS, GGSIPU to the Vice Chancellor of the University regarding alleged acts of in-subordination, misconduct or intimidation of the complainant, and no material had been placed on record by the complainant to show that the said letters were ever placed in public domain.

In fact, even as per the complainant, the said letters were obtained by him by way of an RTI.

After perusing the letters, the court added that the same could not be termed as “per se defamatory”.

“The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the petitioner had written the alleged defamatory letters to the Vice Chancellor of the aforesaid University in her capacity as Dean and on basis of e-mail sent by the complainant and various other incident as enumerated in the said letters. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the case would fall within exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC.”

Advocates Ajay Digpaul, Swati Kwatra, Ishita Pathak and Kamal Rattan Digpaul appeared for Dr Gupta

Case Title: Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274