News Article Was Published In Good Faith And In Exercise Of Fundamental Right Of Free Speech & Expression: SC Quashes Defamation Case Against Newspaper Owner
|The Supreme Court quashed a defamation case against a newspaper owner saying that the news article was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred by the newspaper owner i.e., the accused who was facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “… the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”
Senior Advocate S.K. Gangele appeared on behalf of the appellant while no one appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, a complaint was filed on an allegation that the appellant/accused who was the registered owner of a Daily Newspaper named ‘Sunday Blast’ allowed a news article to be published in the edition dated February 24, 2013 bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj”. It was alleged that the said owner allowed such news article to be published in his newspaper without ascertaining the true facts, which brought down the reputation of the complainant/respondent in the eyes of public at large.
The Magistrate after considering the averments made in the complaint and examining the statement of witnesses, rejected the same. Hence, the complainant preferred a revision against the same and it was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by this, the accused owner challenged the said order before the High Court but it dismissed his plea. Hence, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts observed that, the view taken by the Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified, warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quashed the proceedings.
Cause Title- Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 66)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Prathvi Raj Chuhan, Priya Sharma, Abhaya Nath Das, N D Kaushik, and AOR Satish Kumar.
Respondent: None