Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal challenging the acquittal of a newspaper editor in a criminal defamation case and restored the conviction recorded by the trial court. It held that the High Court had erroneously interfered with a well-reasoned trial court judgment which had found the editor guilty under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The apex court reaffirmed that the right to reputation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and that freedom of the press does not include the right to defame. The Court sentenced the respondent to simple imprisonment for one month and imposed a fine of ₹10,000.
Facts
The matter involved the publication of a defamatory article in a Malayalam daily newspaper. The article, written by the respondent, who was the editor of the newspaper, contained false and unverified allegations against the complainant, who was a senior public official and then Director General of Police. The article accused the complainant of harassing a subordinate officer by denying him promotion and abusing his powers to favour another officer.
The complainant, feeling aggrieved and defamed, filed a private complaint under Section 500 of the IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. After trial, the Magistrate convicted the respondent and sentenced him to one-month imprisonment along with a fine. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. However, the High Court, in a revision petition, reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondent, holding that the complaint failed to establish mens rea and that the article was within the scope of journalistic freedom.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in a criminal defamation case?
- Whether the impugned article published by the respondent amounted to defamation under Section 500 IPC, violating the complainant’s right to reputation?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The complainant argued that the article published was not only factually incorrect but also maliciously motivated to damage his reputation. It was submitted that the newspaper made no attempt to verify the allegations, and the publication caused irreparable harm to his professional standing and dignity. He relied on the trial court’s detailed reasoning, which had assessed the language, tone, and content of the article and found it to be defamatory. The petitioner contended that the High Court had erred in overturning two concurrent factual findings without adequate justification.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent-editor contended that the article was published in good faith and was intended to raise questions of public interest regarding the conduct of senior police officials. He argued that his actions were protected under the freedom of speech and expression, particularly the right of the press to report on matters involving misuse of authority. The defence also invoked exceptions to Section 499 IPC, particularly truth published for public good, and argued that there was no mens rea to defame the complainant. The High Court had rightly concluded, it was submitted, that the conviction could not be sustained due to the lack of malice and due diligence by the complainant to prove his case.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the law of criminal defamation under Section 499 and 500 IPC. The Court clarified that for a successful conviction, it is not necessary to prove explicit malice; what is required is the publication of imputations that are likely to harm a person’s reputation, and that none of the exceptions apply. It noted that the complainant had discharged his initial burden by producing the newspaper article containing defamatory statements, and that the burden had shifted to the accused to justify the content under one of the exceptions.
The Court also explained that the freedom of the press, although protected under Article 19(1)(a), is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation. The balancing of freedom of expression with the right to reputation under Article 21 has long been upheld in Indian jurisprudence.
Precedent Analysis
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221] – Upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, holding that the right to reputation is protected under Article 21.
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632] – Emphasized the limits of press freedom and the importance of consent and accuracy when publishing potentially defamatory content.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [(2010) 5 SCC 600] – Held that mere expressions of opinion do not attract defamation unless they exceed permissible limits.
- M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan [AIR 1970 SC 1876] – Clarified that publication of defamatory material to a third party constitutes an offence under Section 500 IPC.
The Court cited Subramanian Swamy to emphasize that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech and highlighted that an acquittal based on mere invocation of press freedom without proof of truth or good faith is unsustainable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to appreciate that both the trial court and appellate court had considered all relevant evidence, including the text and context of the article, before arriving at a finding of guilt. The High Court had not identified any legal or factual error justifying reversal. The Court emphasized:
“An editor of a newspaper is expected to take responsibility for what is published… Freedom of press is not a license to publish false and defamatory material without verifying facts.”
It held that the respondent’s failure to establish that the imputation was either true or made in good faith meant that the statutory exceptions did not apply. The Court further noted the serious reputational harm caused to the complainant.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the conviction of the respondent under Section 500 IPC. The Court directed that the respondent undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of ₹10,000. The judgment reaffirms that reputational rights are protected by the Constitution and cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unverified press reports.
Implications
This judgment sends a strong message that the freedom of the press carries with it the responsibility to report truthfully and diligently. It draws a clear boundary between journalistic freedom and defamation, reaffirming that public interest reporting must be backed by facts. The ruling reinforces the idea that the right to reputation is not only a legal but also a constitutional value, and any interference with it must be scrutinized closely.
Summary of Cases Referred
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India – Criminal defamation upheld as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2); right to reputation included under Article 21.
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu – Limits on press freedom, especially regarding unverified allegations.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal – Opinions are protected speech unless clearly defamatory.
- M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Ponnan – Reiterated that defamation occurs upon publication to a third party.
FAQs
1. Can an editor be held criminally liable for a defamatory article published in their newspaper?
Yes. As the person responsible for content selection and oversight, an editor can be held liable under Section 500 IPC if defamatory material is published without due verification.
2. Is criminal defamation constitutional in India?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India upheld the constitutionality of Sections 499 and 500 IPC, recognizing reputation as part of the right to life under Article 21.
3. What must an accused prove to escape liability under criminal defamation law?
The accused must show that the imputation is either true and in the public interest or that it was made in good faith. Failing this, liability may ensue even without express malice.