Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1104

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
Aroon Purie - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1853-1856 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5115-5118 of 2021) with Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5258-5261 of 2021), Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.6392-6394 of 2021)
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Mr. Apoorva Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranav Jain, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. Shery George Cherian, Adv. Mr. Mohandas K.K., Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mathen Joseph, Adv. Ms. S. Geetha, Adv. Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. Mr. Amitesh Gaurav, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Publication of defamatory article in News Magazine – In a given case, if facts so justify, benefit of an exception to Section 499 of IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that benefit of exception can only be afforded at stage of trial.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 499, Exception – Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 – Section 7 – Publication of defamatory article in News Magazine – Summoning order – Though presumption under Section 7 is available with regard to Editor, even a Chief Editor can be proceeded against if facts so justify – In a given case, if facts so justify, benefit of an exception to Section 499 of IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that benefit of exception can only be afforded at stage of trial – If there are no specific and sufficient allegations, matter would stand reinforced by reason of fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief – Nothing specific has been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief – He cannot be held liable for acts committed by author of Article-A-2 – Allegations made in complaint completely fall short of making out any case against A-1 – With regard to role ascribed to A-2, as an author of Article his case stands on a different footing – Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at stage of trial – Insofar as public servants are concerned, they are not primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility and their actions are completely protected – Summoning order partly quashed. (Paras 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge common judgment and order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. Nos. 3492 of 2013, 4636 of 2013 and 1762 of 2014, A news item titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ was published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY (for the period of 23.04.2007 to 30.04.2007) stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants. The Article also mentioned that the allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee. The Article further stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary action and when contacted said official denied the charges.
Findings of Court:
Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are not primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility, if at all, is only to the extent that they either reported something touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as public servants, reported something to their seniors. Going by the law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande, (1999) 3 SCC 134, their actions are completely protected.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. Nos. 3492 of 2013, 4636 of 2013 and 1762 of 2014 filed by Mr. Aroon Purie; Mr. Parampreet Singh Randhawa & Ors.; and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, respectively.

3. A news item,¹[“the Article” for short.], titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ was published in the news magazine INDIA TODAY (for the period of 23.04.2007 to 30.04.2007) stating that in a string of embarrassments for the foreign office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick succession following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants. The Article also mentioned that the allegations were levelled against an officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting sexual favours from a local employee. The Article further stated that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary action and when contacted said official denied the charges.

4. It appears that original accused No.12 whose identity is not being disclosed, was working as a ‘Clerk Typist’ in the Consulate General of India, Edinburgh and she had filed a complaint before the Counsel General alleging sexual harassment at the hands of said officer. The complaint was made on 10.07.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 10.07.2005 in certain documents placed on record). This was followed by another communication dated 05.03.2007 to the Deputy High Commissioner, High Commission of India, London alleging continued sexual harassment at work place at the instance of said officer. The record shows that the Ministry of External Affairs by the order dated 08.03.2007 directed that said officer be recalled and that said officer be placed under suspension. On 15.03.2007 the complaint filed by accused No.12 was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, which issued an order on 21.03.2007 stating that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against said officer and that said officer was placed under suspension. These developments were prior to the publication of the Article.

5. Some of the developments which have occurred after the publication of the Article included issuance of a memorandum dated 21.05.2007 by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis of the complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was sought as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against said officer “for sexual harassment of a woman at work place”. Response was filed by said officer on 31.05.2007 and finally by order dated 19.02.2009, disciplinary authority passed an order imposing cut of 20% in pension allowable to said officer on permanent basis. The order of the disciplinary authority was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 02.03.2010 and also by the High Court vide order dated 26.07.2011.

6. In the meantime, on 24.03.2010, Complaint No. 584/1/2010 was filed by said officer against various persons including Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), Mr. Parampreet Singh Randhawa (A-3), Mr. Sharat Sabharwal (A-4), Mr. Ashok Kumar Mukherji (A-8) and other accused. It was submitted inter alia that the Article was defamatory and as such the accused be proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under various sections including Sections 34, 120 B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,²[“IPC”, for short.]. Some of the averments made in the complaint were as under :

“… Accused No. 01 herein, Mr. Aroon Purie, Editor-in-Chief of the newsmagazine titled INDIA TODAY published by the corporate entity titled “LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD” with its registered office at “1-A HAMILTON HOUSE, CONNUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001” for printing and publishing, in its printed issue dated 30/04/2007, a false story of sexual harassment against the Complainant, a se