Publisher's Good Faith Defence in Defamation Requires Reasonable Inquiry, Not Just Repeating Another's Statement: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-07-03

HP High Court Convicts Editor for Defamation, Rules 'Good Faith' Requires Inquiry, Not Blind Republication

Shimla, H.P. - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has overturned the acquittal of a newspaper's Chief Editor in a 15-year-old defamation case, ruling that simply republishing a defamatory statement provided by another person does not automatically grant the protection of 'good faith' under law. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , in a significant judgment, held that a publisher must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the truth of the allegations before publication to claim this defence.

The High Court convicted Vijay Gupta , Chief Editor of 'Him Ujala' newspaper, for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while upholding the acquittal of the local Pradhan , Ramesh Kumar , who was accused of instigating the publication.

Case Background

The case stems from a complaint filed by Gopal Chand against Ramesh Kumar (a Gram Panchayat Pradhan ) and Vijay Gupta (the Chief Editor). The complainant alleged that Kumar , holding a grudge, orchestrated the publication of a defamatory news article in Gupta 's newspaper in 2004. The article referred to the complainant and his brothers as a " Shallow Drama Troupe " and accused them of spreading " Gundaraj " (rule of thugs).

The trial court in Paonta Sahib had acquitted both accused in 2010. It found insufficient evidence to link Kumar to the press note and absolved Gupta on the grounds that he had acted in "good faith" by publishing Kumar 's version of events as a response to a prior article.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant, Gopal Chand , argued that the trial court had erred in its judgment. His counsel contended that the language used was inherently defamatory and published with the intent to harm his reputation.

Counsel for Ramesh Kumar ( Pradhan ): Argued that his client had only provided an explanation to a previous news item and that the defamatory words were added by the editor.

Counsel for Vijay Gupta (Chief Editor): Claimed that as a Chief Editor, he was not liable under the Press Registration Act. Furthermore, he argued that he had acted in good faith, without malice, by publishing a press note handed to him.

High Court's Decisive Reasoning

Justice Rakesh Kainthla systematically dismantled the trial court's reasoning for acquitting the Chief Editor.

1. Calling someone "Gunda" is Per Se Defamatory

The Court first established that the imputations were defamatory. Citing several precedents, the judgment affirmed that calling a person a "gunda" or accusing them of spreading " Gundaraj " is inherently defamatory.

“A bare perusal of the news item shows that it referred to four brothers... Ramesh Kumar (DW1) ... called the group of people a ‘ Shallow Drama Troupe ’. He called the people making the allegations the persons disturbing the peace and spreading the Gundaraj ... All these allegations were made regarding the character of the complainant.”

2. Repetition of Libel is a New Offence

The Court rejected the editor's defence that he merely repeated what was given to him. It held that every republication of a libel constitutes a new offence, and the publisher is answerable for it.

“...the repetition of libel is an offence, and the repeater cannot take shelter behind the plea that he had merely repeated what was said by another.”

3. The 'Good Faith' Defence Requires Due Care and Attention

The most critical part of the judgment was the analysis of the "good faith" defence under Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC. The Court cited the landmark case of Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab to explain that "good faith" under the IPC requires not just honest belief but also "due care and attention."

The Court observed:

"A publisher of a defamatory statement can only be protected if he shows that he had taken all reasonable precautions and then had a reasonable and well-grounded belief in the truth of the statement. The plea of 'good faith' implies the making of a genuine effort to reach the truth..."

Applying this principle, the Court found the Chief Editor's defence wanting:

"In the present case, the accused No. 2 did not claim that he had made any inquiry into the allegations published in the news item. Calling a person a member of a group of ‘Shallow Theatre People’, breaching peace and spreading ‘ Gundaraj ’ does not protect any public interest."

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s reasons for acquitting the Chief Editor were contrary to established legal principles and constituted a perverse finding.

Final Verdict

The High Court partly allowed the appeal.

- The acquittal of Ramesh Kumar (Accused No. 1) was upheld due to insufficient evidence proving he authored the defamatory press note.

- The acquittal of Vijay Gupta (Accused No. 2) was set aside . He was convicted under Section 500 of the IPC for defamation.

The Court has summoned the convicted Chief Editor to appear for a hearing on the quantum of sentence. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to the media about the legal responsibilities associated with publishing information and the high bar required to successfully claim the defence of good faith in defamation cases.