Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Filed By Filed By Bid & Hammer Auctioneers Against TOI Editorial Director Jaideep Bose
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition to quash defamation proceedings against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.’s ex-Editorial Director, Jaideep Bose observing that he oversaw and was responsible for the content of the newspaper.
The Court quashed the criminal defamation complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC filed by Bid and Hammer Auctioneers against Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (Media Company), while dismissing the petition filed by the former Editorial Director under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda observed, “A mere reporting of a view of an expert would be different from an article which gives a categorical finding to begin with, and thereafter seek support of experts in the field. In my view, the learned Magistrate was justified in initiating criminal proceedings in respect to the offending article.”
Advocate P.N. Rajeswara represented the petitioners, while Sr. Advocate Vikram Huilgol appeared for the respondent.
The petition sought to quash the criminal proceedings against the media company and several of its senior editorial personnel, including Jaideep Bose, Neelam Raj, Swathi Deshande, Shubro Niyogi, Ratnottam Sengupta, Nergish Sunavala, and Rashmi Menon.
The Media Company published an article that raised concerns about the authenticity of various artworks scheduled for auction by Bid & Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. (Company). The article raised questions regarding the authenticity of several pieces by renowned artists such as Rabindranath Tagore, Nandalal Bose, K K Hebbar, Bikash Bhattacharjee, Hemendranath Majumdar, and K H Ara.
The Media Company and its editorial team argued that the article published was an assertion of the experts in the field and would therefore not amount to defamation. It was contended that a newspaper had a right to report a newsworthy article, more so when it was the opinion of experts in the field.
The Court remarked, “A reading of the first and the second paragraphs in the article, however gives a distinct impression that a finding has already been recorded by the author of the article that the original paintings were in the safe custody, while duplicates/fake paintings were sought to be auctioned.”
Noting that the media company owned the newspaper and the complaint did not contain any assertions regarding the participation of the media company, the Bench held that it was not justifiable to proceed against them.
It was also argued that the second petitioner was only an Editorial Director and as required under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Director was a person who would be responsible for the publication of an article and an Editorial Director who was only in charge of the policy decisions of the newspaper cannot be proceeded against.
Consequently, the Court held, “A reading of the complaint does indicate that a specific assertion is made that the second accused oversaw the contents of the newspapers and was responsible of the contents. In light of this specific allegation against the second petitioner, there is no justification for quashing the proceedings as against the second petitioner. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd & Ors. v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:21484)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate P.N. Rajeswara
Respondent: Sr. Advocate Vikram Huilgol; Advocate Nikit Bala