Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 363

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Jaideep Bose – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10212 of 2024]
WITH
Nergish Sunavala – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13443 of 2024]
WITH
Swati Deshpande and Others – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15653 of 2024]
WITH
Neelam Raaj – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16153 of 2024]
Decided On : 18-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Kaushiq, Adv. Mr. Prashant M.s., Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Aidasani, Adv. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Karishma Naghnoor, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Kushal Dube, Adv. Mr. Tathagata Dutta, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.

Defamation requires specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm; failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry before issuing summons renders the proceedings invalid.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 499 and 500 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 202 - Defamation - Appeals against High Court order dismissing criminal petition challenging summons issued for defamation - High Court quashed complaint against one accused but upheld against others - Court found no specific allegations against editorial director, procedural irregularities in issuing summons without inquiry as mandated under Section 202 - Summons quashed for all appellants due to lack of evidence of reputational harm and failure to follow due process. (Paras 2, 19.1, 20, 21)

(B) Defamation - Essential ingredients - To establish defamation, there must be an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and the imputation must lower the reputation of the person in the estimation of others. (Paras 13.2, 19.2)

Facts of the case:
The case arose from a private complaint alleging defamation against a media company and its employees for publishing articles questioning the authenticity of paintings at an auction. The complaint was filed after several articles were published, leading to reputational harm claims. (Paras 3, 15)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to conduct the necessary inquiry before issuing summons, and the complaint lacked specific allegations against the editorial director. The court emphasized the importance of following due process in defamation cases. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants could be held liable for defamation without specific allegations and whether the trial court followed the mandatory inquiry process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (Paras 19.2, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of specific allegations against the editorial director and the failure to conduct an inquiry as required by law rendered the summons invalid. The court underscored the need for accuracy and responsibility in media reporting. (Paras 19.2, 21)

Result: Appeals allowed; summons and complaint quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

Legal Framework for Defamation and Procedure:
Defamation involves specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm; mere publication of potentially defamatory content is not sufficient without proof of harm (!) (!) (!) .
The law requires that for a claim of defamation, there must be an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and the imputation must lower the reputation of the person in the estimation of others (!) (!) .
Procedural Requirements for Criminal Proceedings:
When initiating criminal proceedings based on a private complaint, the Magistrate must conduct a proper inquiry or investigation before issuing summons, especially if the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court (!) (!) (!) .
The inquiry must include examining witnesses and applying due diligence to establish a prima facie case, which is mandatory before proceeding against accused residing beyond the Court’s jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Responsibility of Media Personnel:
The "editor" of a publication is presumed responsible for the content, with a statutory presumption that the editor controls the publication's content unless proven otherwise (!) (!) .
An individual designated as "editor" under relevant law is presumed liable for content, but others, such as the "editorial director," require specific allegations and evidence of involvement in the publication process to be held liable (!) (!) .
Responsibility of the Appellants and Procedural Irregularities:
The proceedings against individuals like the editorial director or those who authored or contributed to the articles require clear, specific allegations regarding their roles in publication (!) (!) .
When the accused reside outside the jurisdiction, and the procedural requirements (such as inquiry under Section 202) are not followed, the issuance of summons is invalid, leading to the quashing of proceedings (!) (!) .
Assessment of Defamatory Content:
The content of news articles must be examined in their entirety to determine whether they contain defamatory imputations, considering whether they make factual allegations or mere reporting of opinions or public discourse (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Articles that merely report on public issues, include opinions, or quote experts without making direct false accusations are less likely to constitute defamation (!) (!) .
Impact of Procedural Flaws on Legal Proceedings:
Procedural irregularities, such as failure to conduct inquiry or examine witnesses, especially when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction, can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings (!) (!) .
The importance of applying due process and ensuring proper legal procedures is emphasized to prevent misuse of criminal defamation laws and protect freedom of speech (!) (!) .
Balancing Freedom of Speech and Responsibility:
While freedom of speech and press are fundamental rights, they must be exercised responsibly, with accuracy and fairness, especially when reporting on matters that can impact reputation (!) (!) .
The media has a significant influence on public opinion, and publication of news should be in the public interest, with an emphasis on good faith and factual correctness to avoid unwarranted damage to individuals or entities (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal principles highlight the necessity of proper procedural compliance, clear allegations of involvement, and responsible journalism, especially when allegations of defamation are concerned. Proceedings initiated without following due process or lacking substantive evidence are liable to be invalidated, safeguarding both individual reputation and freedom of expression.

Table of Content
1. private complaint filed against media company (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. submissions by counsel for appellants (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's discussion on evidence and allegations (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru¹ [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Petition No. 3829 of 2017, titled ‘Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd and others v. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, arising out of complaint in PCR No. 13146/2014 and CC No. 18491 of 2016 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.² [Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”] By the said order, the High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellants herein challenging the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them for the offences under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ [For short “IPC”] however, quashed the complaint as far as M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.⁴ [For short “the company”] (Accused No. 1) is concerned.

3. The genesis of the present cases lies in a private complaint dated 22.08.2014 filed by the complainant/respondent herein against the company and its directors, editors and journalists, numbering 14 accused persons, under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁵ [For short “Cr.P.C.”] read with Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The gravamen of the complaint pertains to certain news articles published in various newspapers viz. 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) on 27.06.2014, 28.06.2014, 29.06.2014, 06.07.2014, 07.07.2014, and 20.07.2014 which contained alleged defamatory contents regarding the authenticity of certain paintings to be auctioned by the respondent herein.

4. Upon receipt of the complaint, the sworn statement of the complainant/respondent was recorded on 14.11.2014. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and directed to register the same for the offences under sections 499 and 500 IPC and issue summons to the accused, vide order dated 29.07.2016. The complaint was received as PCR No. 13146/2014 and later, registered as CC No. 18491 of 2016 which is now, pending on the file of the trial Court.

5. Challenging the issuance of summons, the appellants filed Criminal Petition No. 3829 of 2017 before the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. After due contest, the High Court dismissed the petition as against the appellants herein, however, quashed the complaint as far as the company (A1) is concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us with the present appeals.

CONTENTIONS

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/Accused No. 2 [SLP (Crl.) No. 10212 of 2024] made the following submissions:

(b) In the private complaint filed by the respondent, there is no specific averment regarding the appellant’s role in publishing the alleged defamatory news articles, except mentioning his name as the editorial director of the company and thus, he could not have been arraigned as an accused.

(c) Under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, it is the “editor” who controls the selection of matter published in the newspapers, besides requiring the names of editor, printer, and publisher to be published in the print line of the newspapers. The appellant's name does not appear in the print line of any of the newspapers that published the news articles in question. The designation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 363

Defamation requires specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm; failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry before issuing summons renders the proceedings invalid.

Cases Referred (8)

Related Judgments

Jaideep Bose VS Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(SC) 363

Sanjay Gupta vs Prem Kumar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 189

Sanjay Gupta vs Prem Kumar - 2026 Supreme(J&K) 1

Sanjay Gupta vs Prem Kumar - 2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 563

Vipin Pubby VS State of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 193

Natwarlal Agarwal, S/o Late Ram Nivas Agarwal VS State Of Assam - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 495

Mahender Mohan Gupta vs State of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1680

Mathrubhumi Printing And Publishing Company Limited VS Santiago Martin - 2022 Supreme(Sikk) 26

Rajesh Ramachandran vs State Of Punjab - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1419

Rajesh Ramachandran vs State Of Punjab - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1328