Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Editorial Director Of Bennet Coleman Over Times Of India Article

The Supreme Court today (August 12) stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Jaideep Bose, Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, which publishes the newspaper Times of India.

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in the matter and directed stay of proceedings pending any further orders by the Court.

"Pending further orders there shall be a stay of further proceeding," the Court ordered.

Bose had challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to quash the defamation charges against him under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code although proceedings against the Company itself were quashed.

The company, Bose and others had approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in the year 2014. The proceedings were initiated by M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited after an allegedly defamatory article was published in the newspaper about an auction of artwork being conducted by the complainant. The article allegedly suggested that fake artworks of celebrated artists were being put for auction.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate R Basant for the petitioner submitted that charges do not detail upon any express omission or commission of offence by the petitioner. Rather there was only a general omnibus statement against the petitioner that- he oversees the publications. Basant said that the petitioner as the Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman, which had several publications, and Bose had a general supervision of all of them.

Additionally, the High Court also erroneously assumed that the petitioner is the editor of all the other newspapers and publications and thus responsible for their contents. The complaint of defamation against the petitioner was not maintainable as there are separate individuals designated under S.7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

It may be noted that before the High Court, Bose argued that he was only an Editorial Director and as required under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Director is a person who would be responsible for the publication of an article and an editorial director who is only in charge of the policy decisions of the newspaper cannot be proceeded against.

Findings Of The Karnataka High Court

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the article published was the assertion of experts in the field, and would therefore not amount to defamation. Moreover, it was said that the newspaper had the right to report a newsworthy article, more so when it is the opinion of experts in the field.

A single-judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, perused the article and said, “A reading of the first and the second paragraphs in the article, however gives a distinct impression that a finding has already been recorded by the author of the article that the original paintings were in the safe custody, while duplicates/fake paintings were sought to be auctioned.”

Further, it said that a mere reporting of the view of an expert would be different from an article which gives a categorical finding to begin with, and thereafter seeks the support of experts in the field.

It further held that since the complaint did not contain any assertions regarding the participation of the company (Bennett Coleman And Co Ltd), it would not be justifiable to proceed against the company and the proceedings against the company was quashed.

It further concluded that "A reading of the complaint does indicate that a specific assertion is made that the second accused oversaw the contents of the newspapers and was responsible for the contents. In light of this specific allegation against the second petitioner, there is no justification for quashing the proceedings as against the second petitioner.”

Case Details : JAIDEEP BOSE Versus M/S BID AND HAMMER AUCTIONEERS PRIVATE LIMITED SLP(Crl) No. 10212/2024