‘Editor must have ethical gatekeeping’: Journalist found guilty of defamation

The complainant claimed that she had maintained an honest professional record and enjoyed a respectable reputation among colleagues. She alleged that the monthly publication carried an article portraying her as being closely associated with another official, suggesting that she was acting beyond her official authority and violating service norms.

According to the complaint, the article also insinuated that she had received undue favour from the senior official, questioned her professional integrity, and warned that such conduct could eventually cost her government employment. She contended that these allegations were entirely fabricated, unsupported by any evidence, and were deliberately intended to lower her image before her family, colleagues and the general public.

After learning about the publication, the complainant issued a legal notice dated November 20, 2021, seeking substantiation of the allegations. As the first notice could not be served, another notice dated November 29, 2021, was sent to the editor’s residential address and was delivered on December 4, 2021. Despite receiving it, the editor neither replied nor produced any material supporting the publication, leading to the filing of a private complaint before the magistrate.

‘Procedural defects in complaint’

During the trial, the complainant presented as the sole witness and produced the newspaper, legal notices, postal acknowledgements and related documents. The defence, on the other hand, argued that the complaint suffered from procedural defects, disputed service of notice, questioned whether the article was defamatory, and contended that no independent witness had been examined to prove reputational damage.

The defence further relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava v State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that the complaint lacked the necessary affidavit. It also attempted to argue that the expressions used in the article were capable of an innocent meaning and therefore did not amount to criminal defamation.

Court’s findings

• The court rejected the objection regarding the absence of an affidavit, holding that the complaint filed in 2021 contained sufficient verification and that the proceedings were not vitiated on that ground.
• Although no independent document identifying the accused as editor was produced, the court held that the publication itself carried the editor’s name and photograph, establishing responsibility for the contents of the magazine.
• The article specifically referred to the complainant and another official by name and contained insinuations capable of lowering her reputation in the estimation of ordinary readers.
• Once the complainant established publication of defamatory material, the burden shifted to the accused to prove truth, good faith or any other statutory defence. The accused neither entered the witness box, nor produced any documentary or oral evidence to establish the truthfulness of the allegations or the existence of reliable sources.
• The court emphasised that editors are expected to verify facts, rely on credible sources, check for bias and ensure fairness before publishing serious allegations. It held that the publication did not fall within any of the 10 exceptions to the offence of defamation and, therefore, constituted criminal defamation.

Published with ‘intention to defame’

“Under the guise of journalism, the accused has no right or authority to publish any such article without any relevant source and information as against the complainant. The publication of article in newspaper itself shows the accused published it with an intention and knowledge to defame the complainant,” the court stated.

Rejecting the contention that the complainant ought to have examined independent witnesses, the court held that the complainant’s testimony, coupled with the publication itself, sufficiently established reputational harm. It observed that a newspaper naturally has the capacity to damage a person’s standing in society and freedom of speech cannot become a licence to publish defamatory material lacking factual verification.

Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the editor intentionally published defamatory imputations without proof, justification or reliable sources. The editor was convicted under IPC sections 499 and 500, pertaining to defamation, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 20,000, with 60 days’ simple imprisonment on default of payment.

Significance

The ruling reinforces that editors and media organisations must verify facts before publishing allegations capable of damaging an individual’s reputation. It also reiterates that freedom of the press does not extend to publishing defamatory imputations unsupported by truth, good faith, or public interest.