On Monday, October 31, the Supreme Court two-judge bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi stated that the editor-in-chief cannot be prosecuted for defamation in the absence of ‘specific allegations.’
Chief Editor Cannot Be Prosecuted In Absence Of Specific Allegations: Supreme Court While Quashing Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie @padmaaa_shr,@aroonpurie https://t.co/0XVAFpc9jG
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 1, 2022
The observation was made while the apex court was hearing a plea filed by India Today founder and editor-in-chief Aroon Purie challenging the criminal defamation case filed against him over a report that appeared in the magazine in 2007.
While quashing the criminal defamation case filed against Purie, the court ruled that if there are no specific and adequate allegations, the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867 cannot be applied against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
The Court, however, did not quash the case against journalist Saurabh Shukla, who wrote the concerned story.
The issue related to a news piece titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ that was published in India Today that claimed that three Indian Officials posted at the Indian High Commission in the United Kingdom had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in visa issuance, and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants.
The article also stated that complaints were made against an Indian Foreign Service officer stationed in the United Kingdom for requesting sexual favours from a local employee. According to the article, the officer, who is now back in India, is facing disciplinary punishment and, when approached, denied the claims.
India Today had named one of these officials as OP Bhola, then India’s deputy consul general in Edinburgh. Bhola is a complainant in the case.
Following this, a complaint was lodged against several individuals, including Aroon Purie, the then-Editor-in-Chief of India Today Magazine and Saurabh Shukla, the author of the article. It was argued that the article was defamatory and that the accused should be prosecuted for violating Sections 34, 120 B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501, and 502 of the IPC.
Aroon Purie argued that under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867, only an editor or printer can be prosecuted. As a result, he could never be prosecuted as the editor-in-chief.
The Supreme Court determined that the presumption under Section 7 of the Act applied to a Chief Editor and that he, too, may be prosecuted if the evidence warranted it.
In light of the aforementioned principle, the court reviewed the assertions and charges stated in the complaint. However, it did not discover anything specific ascribed to Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie. As a result, it was concluded that he could not be held accountable for the activities done by the author of the Article.
