‘Journalism is civilisation’s mirror, investigative journalism its X-ray’: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Chitkara made the observations while disposing of the petitions filed by Manraj Grewal (then Deputy News Editor – The Indian Express, Chandigarh), Vipin Pubby (then Editor – The Indian Express, Chandigarh), Swatantra Saxena (Ex-Special Correspondent, Dainik Tribune) and Barjinder Singh Hamdard (Managing Editor of Daily Ajit and Ajit Samachar).

The petitioners had moved HC aggrieved by the dismissal of the criminal revision petition by the Sessions Court of Gurugram, refusing to quash the summons issued in the complaint filed for criminal defamation by a former Additional Director General of Police (CID) of Haryana, over publication of a news report in the newspaper in 2008.

Among the contentions of the petitioners, Vipin Pubby and Manraj Grewal through their Advocate Mr Manu K Bhandari, submitted that the complaint has been pending since 2008, and the complainant delayed its proceedings,  they were not at fault, and were facing the trauma of criminal proceedings.

Justice Chitkara on hearing the matter at length said that a bare reading of the news published in The Indian Express, Chandigarh edition points to investigative journalism where the complainant’s version was also reflected. The complainant nowhere states that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld its material aspects.

Justice Chitkara asserted that “Before the journalist wrote the news, he took the complainant’s view into account and mentioned it in the news item, which shows that he adhered to the ethical standards of reasonableness and impartiality, which are key to journalism. One of the foundational responsibilities of a journalist is to seek the truth and report it with caution while not distorting or manipulating any facts. The respective journalist cross-checked the information, ascertained it, and explicitly mentioned the complainant’s version to rule out whether the facts were true or mere concocted lies or rumours.”

“This cross-checking and accurate reporting of the  complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties. What else can we expect from a journalist? The reporting itself proves by a preponderance of probability of due care and caution, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted as the discharging of their burden by the petitioner under S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,” noted Justice Chitkara, in the order.

The Bench added that “The reporter of Indian Express had explicitly mentioned the complainant’s denial and the corroboration of such denial from the SP Panchkula. A wholesome and complete reading by an ordinary prudent person would neither discredit nor lower the complainant’s image. However, if the witnesses read this news with coloured spectacles, the report cannot be made liable for such misunderstanding. The reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offence under Section 499 IPC because they exercised restraint, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. That whatever they wrote they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

On a perusal of the news item, the bench said, “A complete reading of the news, which contained the complainant’s rebuttal, his version, the version of the police, can be stated to have been published in good faith and discharge of their functions in a democracy, and if restrictions are created to publish such news, it would be just like killing a mockingbird.”