Chief Editor Cannot Be Prosecuted In Absence Of Specific Allegations: Supreme Court While Quashing Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi has made it clear that the Chief Editor cannot be prosecuted for defamation in the absence of 'specific allegations'.

The presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 cannot be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief, if there are no specific and sufficient allegations, it held.

It thus quashed the defamation complaint filed against Aroon Purie, founder-director of India Today for a news article published in its news magazine. However, the court did not grant relief to the author of the news article.

The issue pertained to a news item titled 'Mission Misconduct' which was published in India Today (for the period of 23.04.2007 to 30.04.2007) stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants. The Article also mentioned that the allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee. The Article further stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary action and when contacted, denied the charges.

Following this, a complaint was filed against various persons including Aroon Purie, the then Editor-in-Chief of the India Today Magazine and the author of the article. It was submitted that the Article was defamatory and as such the accused be proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 34, 120 B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of IPC.

Aroon Purie had contended that as per Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, normally only an editor, printer can be prosecuted. Thus, as the editor-in-chief, he could never be prosecuted. Here, the Supreme Court found that the presumption under Section 7 of the Act was available against a Chief Editor and he too could be proceeded against if the facts so justify. The court added–

"Though the benefit of presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act is not applicable so far as Chief Editors or Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the matter would be required to be considered purely from the perspective of the allegations made in the complaint. If the allegations are sufficient and specific, no benefit can be extended to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Conversely, it would logically follow that if there are no specific and sufficient allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of the fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief."

In light of the said principle, the court considered the assertions and allegations made in the complaint. But it did not find anything specific attributed the Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie. Therefore, it was found that he could not be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article. The court further held that–

"With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated at this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a different footing. Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial."

Thus, the appeal by the Editor-in-Chief was accepted and complaint against him was quashed.

CASE TITLE: AROON PURIE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894 | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5115­-5118/2021 | 31 October 2022

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 499 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482 - Defamation complaint against  Mr. Aroon Purie (Editor in Chief of India Today) and author of an article and others - Nothing specific has been attributed to Editor-in-Chief and therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article - With regard to the role ascribed to author,  his case stands on a different footing - Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial- In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial. (Para 21)

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ; Section 7 - Though the benefit of presumption under Section 7 is not applicable so far as Chief Editors or Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the matter would be required to be considered purely from the perspective of the allegations made in the complaint. If the allegations are sufficient and specific, no benefit can be extended to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief - If there are no specific and sufficient allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of the fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. (Para 22)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment