Back
Quashes Defamation Case Against Republic Editor, Reporter Over Kabir Suman Call
The has quashed a criminal defamation proceeding against ’s Senior Executive Editor Abhishek Kapoor and reporter Bittu Chowdhury, holding that the of a complainant’s own words cannot constitute defamation and that the Magistrate’s orders were vitiated by procedural irregularities. Justice Uday Kumar allowed two revision applications under on , bringing an end to Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 pending before the .
The Call That Sparked the Dispute
The case originated from a telephone conversation on , when Chowdhury, then a reporter for , called singer Kabir Suman to seek his reaction concerning the late singer Sandhya Mukherjee. According to the judgment, Suman reacted with “intemperate language” and “a torrent of common Bengali slangs and expletives.” Two days later, Suman published a Facebook apology acknowledging his outburst. After an audio recording of the conversation was circulated, Suman issued a legal notice and eventually filed a complaint under . The Magistrate took on , and issued summons on , against Chowdhury and Kapoor, despite the fact that the conversation was never broadcast or telecast by .
“No Independent ” – Petitioners’ Core Argument
, appearing for the petitioners, forcefully argued that the prosecution was “legally stillborn” because the foundational ingredient of defamation—an “” originating from the accused—was entirely absent. He submitted that a person cannot defame another by truthfully reproducing what that very person has himself uttered. The act of recording or disseminating the complainant’s own unedited words, he contended, does not amount to an under . Ganguly further pointed out that the order was passed on a printed pro forma, contrary to Rule 183 of the Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985, and that the was mechanically issued against vague designations like “The Editor - ” without any application of judicial mind to individual roles. Additionally, the Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory under , even though the petitioners resided outside his .
Court’s Analysis: Is Not Defamation
The High Court accepted the petitioners’ submissions, relying on the ’s decision in , where it was held that if a publication is a true and faithful account of what transpired and contains no independent malicious , the essential ingredients of defamation are missing. The Court also cited its own decisions in and , which reaffirmed that faithful reporting without does not attract Section 499.
Justice Kumar underscored , which requires that the must lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of others. “A person cannot be defamed in his own eyes,” the Court observed. The complainant’s initial deposition under lacked any independent third-party witness who testified that Suman’s moral or intellectual character had been lowered in their estimation—a fatal gap in the defamation case.
The Court further noted that the suffered from “fatal procedural and substantive illegalities.” It was issued against a vague designation without determining individual culpability, contrary to the principles laid down in and . The Magistrate’s failure to conduct the Section 202 inquiry, as mandated by , was another compounding illegality, given that the petitioners resided beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“A person cannot be said to defame another by truthfully reproducing or capturing what that very person has himself uttered in an uninhibited outburst.”
“An ‘’ pre-supposes an active assertion, allegation, or attribution originating from the accused; it can never encompass the passive recording, exposure, or dissemination of the complainant’s own unedited words spoken in his own voice.”
“Upon a holistic synthesis… this Court is firmly of the view that the continuation of Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022 against both petitioners is an egregious and a .”
Decision: Proceedings Quashed, No Costs
The High Court allowed both revision applications and quashed the entire proceeding, including the order dated , the dated , and all consequential orders against Abhishek Kapoor and Bittu Chowdhury. The pending applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the mere recording and dissemination of a person’s own words—without any independent defamatory material—cannot sustain a prosecution for defamation. It also serves as a stern reminder to subordinate courts to adhere to procedural mandates, especially the under , and to avoid mechanical issuance of process against persons holding editorial positions.
