Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal defamation proceedings against journalists and editors of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., ruling that procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not followed when issuing summons to the accused who resided outside the court’s jurisdiction. The case concerns a complaint filed by auction house Bid & Hammer, which alleged that news articles published by the defendants in 2014 defamed their reputation by questioning the authenticity of paintings they planned to auction. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry before issuing a summons, and the High Court erred by selectively examining only one article while ignoring others. The Court emphasized that criminal liability must be individually determined, finding that allegations against Editorial Director Jaideep Bose merely stated he “oversaw the publications” without substantiating his control over content selection. Additionally, the Court noted that no evidence was presented showing actual damage to Bid & Hammer’s reputation despite a decade passing since the auction. While affirming the importance of press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the Court also cautioned media professionals about their responsibility when publishing content that could impact individuals’ reputations.

Facts

On August 22, 2014, Bid & Hammer, a traditional brick-and-mortar auction house in India, filed a private complaint against a news house and its editors, including M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., Jaideep Bose, Nergish Sunvala, Swati Deshpande, and Neelam Raj, alleging defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Bid & Hammer claimed that certain news articles published in Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Times of India (Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, New Delhi, and Pune editions), and The Economic Times (New Delhi and Mumbai editions) between June 27 and July 20, 2014, contained defamatory content that allegedly cast doubt on the authenticity of paintings that Bid & Hammer planned to auction.

After examining the complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance of the matter and issued summons to all the above-mentioned accused persons, initiating criminal proceedings under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved by the summons, M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., Bose, Sunvala, Deshpande, and Raj filed petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them. After hearing both parties, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Bose, Sunvala, Deshpande, and Raj. However, the High Court allowed the petition filed by M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and quashed the complaint against it. 

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants (Bose, Sunvala, Deshpande, and Raj) filed appeals before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the dismissal of their petition.

Decision Overview

Justice Pardiwala and Justice Madadevan delivered the decision for the Supreme Court of India. The main issue before the Court was to determine whether the criminal proceedings for defamation against the appellants were legally valid, considering both procedural requirements and the substantive elements of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bose, Sunvala, Deshpande, and Raj collectively contended that they could not be held liable for criminal defamation because they either did not author the allegedly defamatory articles or their roles did not involve control over content publication. According to them, the complaint lacked specific averments regarding their involvement. Moreover, the appellants held that the Trial Court failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing a summons against the accused persons residing outside the court’s jurisdiction. They also argued that the complaint lacked the essential ingredients of criminal defamation as it relied solely on a self-estimation of harm without evidence of reputational damage from third parties. The appellants contended that the news articles merely quoted art experts’ opinions and raised questions without making conclusions against Bid & Hammer. Lastly, they contended that the High Court’s order was flawed as it referred only to one news article while ignoring others, thereby failing to apply a judicial mind to each appellant’s specific role.

Bid & Hammer argued that it enjoyed an impeccable reputation that had been seriously damaged by the defamatory news articles that were widely circulated, causing considerable harm to business interests and undermining their credibility with clients, partners, and the public. It argued that the complaint sufficiently established the appellants’ roles in publishing the defamatory content and outlined the harm caused to its reputation. Bid & Hammer further submitted that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case is required rather than proof beyond doubt, and therefore, the High Court correctly dismissed the challenge to the summons issued by the Trial Court after careful consideration of the defamatory nature of the articles.

The Court began its analysis by noting that a single complaint was filed against the appellants (Bose, Sunvala, Deshpande, and Raj) for different news articles published in various editions across multiple states. The Court first dealt with appellant Jaideep Bose, who served as the Editorial Director of the company. It distinguished his position from that of an editor, noting that while the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, imposes a higher degree of responsibility on editors and creates a rebuttable presumption of liability against them, no such statutory presumption exists against editorial directors. While referring to K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, the Court emphasized that individuals in roles other than editors can still be held liable, but only when specific allegations regarding their role in the publication process are made. Thus, the Court argued that the complaint merely alleged that Bose “oversaw the publications” without substantiating how he controlled the selection of the content, which was insufficient to justify the issuance of a summons.

The Court further noted procedural irregularities in the case, as Jaideep Bose resided in Mumbai, outside the jurisdiction of the concerned Trial Court. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was required to proceed according to Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conducting a proper inquiry before issuing a summons, which was not done. Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that the complaint was not maintainable against Bose. Regarding the remaining appellants, the Court observed that the High Court only considered one article authored by Raj and did not take into account or discuss the other news articles authored by the remaining accused persons. This selective consideration constituted a significant procedural flaw, as criminal defamation requires an individual assessment of each accused person’s specific contribution and intent. By failing to examine each article separately, the High Court could not have properly established whether the mandatory elements of defamation under sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code were satisfied for each appellant, undermining the fundamental requirement that criminal liability must be individually determined rather than collectively presumed. 

The Court also found that the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed for these appellants either, as they resided in Mumbai/Kolkata while the complaint was filed in Bangalore. According to the Supreme Court, the Trial Court issued a summons without examining any witnesses to establish prima facie that the alleged imputations had lowered the complainant’s reputation, which constituted a procedural irregularity. While such irregularities would ordinarily warrant a remand, the Court decided against it, considering that the auction had taken place on June 27, 2014, and more than a decade had passed since then. Furthermore, it noted that no material evidence had been presented to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage was actually caused due to the alleged news articles. 

The Court also took note that similar criminal appeals arising from complaints by the same complainant had previously been allowed in M/s.DAG Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s.Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd. [para. 20]. This precedent was significant as it involved Bid & Hammer filing similar defamation complaints against other parties, which were previously dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby establishing a pattern of potentially vexatious litigation by the auction company. For these reasons, the Court quashed the High Court’s order, the Trial Court’s summons, and the criminal proceedings against all appellants.

Before concluding, the Court emphasized the paramount importance of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution while simultaneously stressing that media professionals must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions. The Court acknowledged the significant power of media in shaping public opinion and its ability to influence public sentiments, quoting Bulwer Lytton that “The Pen is mightier than the sword.” On this point, the Court underscored that the publication of news articles must be done in the public interest and with good faith, given the far-reaching consequences media reports can have on individuals’ reputations.