Supreme Court Reserves Order In Plea Of Aroon Purie, Former India Today Chief Editor, To Quash Criminal Defamation Case

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order in the petition filed by Aroon Purie, founder-director of India Today group challenging the criminal defamation complaint filed over a 2007 news article "Mission Misconduct" in India Today magazine. The bench orally remarked that while it will granting relief to Aroon Purie (who was the Chief Editor of the India Today publications at the time of publication of the subject article), relief could not be granted to the author of the news article. The matter was heard by a bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi.

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"

At the outset, Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan, appearing for Aroon Purie, submitted that Purie was the editor-in-chief at the time of the publication, and as per the judgment in KM Mathew v. State of Kerala, he could not be held liable for the article. He further submitted that both the versions were given and the article was published with much restraint. Also, the actions of a public servant can be brought under scrutiny and the courts will impose a higher threshold for a criminal defamation complaint by a public servant.

Per contra, the counsel for complainant OP Bhola stated that there was no statutory immunity to Chief Editor or Managing Editor in defamation cases. He said–

"Aroon Purie holds the majority shares in India Today. This kind of information would have had some monetary value. He clearly knows the policy. Even today in 2021, this news was updated. Google serves this case, even today. It's fabricated."

The counsel for the reporter Saurabh Shukla, who was the author of the article also appeared before the court. He stated that he came under the 9th exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. For context, the ninth exception states that it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the inter­ests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. The CJI remarked–

"If you say that you studied everything before publishing, you would be aware of the decision of Minister on 8th March. You don't come under the 9th exception. Whether or not it is a public good exception is a question of fact, not a matter under Section 482."

Accordingly, the CJI stated that the Court would grant relief to Aroon Purie and the officer but not to the reporter.

"We'll grant relief to these two sets of persons but not you", CJI told the reporter's counsel.

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, Arun Poorie 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

Click Here To Read/Download Order