Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashes defamation case against Arnab Goswami, Aditya Raj Kaul

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a defamation complaint filed by Naeem Akhter, a senior leader of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and a former member of J&K Legislative Assembly, against Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and journalist Aditya Raj Kaul (Aditya Raj Kaul & Ors v. Naeem Akhter). .Single-judge Justice Sanjay Dhar quashed the defamation proceedings pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar noting that the news broadcast in question was based on a letter written by one Khalid Jahangir and no allegation emanated from the news anchors or the channel. "Having carefully watched the news programme contained in the compact disk attached to the complaint, I do not find any imputation or any allegation having emanated from the presenters of the news programme. The anchors and the presenters only repeatedly referred to the letter of Shri Khalid Jahangir and read out contents," the judgment said. The Court further said that the news anchor repeatedly made it clear that their information was based on the letter and also conveyed to the viewers that the contents of the letter are yet to be established."By doing so, the channel has, while telecasting the programme, taken due care that is expected of a responsible news channel. In view of the matter, it can not be stated that the accused intended to harm the reputation of the complainant," the Court ruled..The complaint against Goswami and Kaul was filed in year 2018 under section 499 and 500 RPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.In the complaint it was alleged that on July 4, 2018, Republic TV broadcast a defamatory and malicious news segment against the complainant following a letter dated June 21, 2018, written by one Khalid Jahangir, member of Bhartiya Janta Party and former VC of J&K Projects Construction Corporation (JKPCC), to the Governor. In the letter, Jahangir had leveled allegations of corruption and favouritism against a close aide of former Chief Minister of the State. According to the complainant, even though the letter did not make a mention of name of any person, yet Goswami, while reporting about the said letter, deliberately and intentionally mentioned the name of complainant in connection with the allegations leveled in the letter of Jahangir.The court, however, took cognizance and initiated the process against petitioners, and also issued bailable warrants for securing attendance of the petitioners..In their plea before the High Court, the petitioners challenged the complaint as well as the proceedings emanating from it on the grounds that the allegations of corruption against the complainant were not made by the petitioners but were made by Jahangir in his letter addressed to the Governor and the petitioners on the basis of the said latter only broadcast a news segment relating to these allegations..Counsel for the petitioners Senior Advocate RA Jan along with M/S Rajat Pradhan & Aswad Attar Advocates contended that the letter in question was already in public domain at the relevant time, therefore, offence complained of was not made out against the petitioners..It was also pointed out that several other news agencies had carried the same news item based on Jahangir's letter..The Court said that the press, which is the fourth pillar of democracy, has a bounden duty to bring to the notice of the viewers and readers the day-to-day events, particularly those relating to public figures and public servants concerning their actions/omissions affecting the public at large..Further, it observed that there was no dispute that respondent/ complainant was holding the portfolio of Works Minister in the Coalition Government of People's Democratic Party and Bhartiya Janta Party during the period when Khalid Jahangir was holding the position of VC, JKPCC.Thus, when a journalist publishes accurate and true report in respect of a public figure relating to his public functions, which is already in public domain, it cannot be stated that there was any intention to harm the reputation of such person, the Court said.Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently contended that the expressions “good faith” and “public good”, appearing in exceptions to Section 499 (criminal defamation) of Ranbir Penal Code are questions of facts and these can be determined only during trial of the case, the burden of proving an exception being always upon the accused.The Court agreed with the same but said that in the instant case, even the ingredients of main Section 499 RPC are not made out from the contents of the complaint because the imputations which have been published by the channel of the petitioners have not originated from them but the originator of these imputations is someone else i.e. Khalid Jahangir who had written a letter containing allegations against the respondent to the Governor which found its way into public domain."Categorizing as defamation, the publication of allegations/ charges concerning public duties of public figure recorded in a letter which is in public domain, would be an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution," the Court said..The Court also said that the Magistrate, while issuing process against the petitioners, did not apply his mind to the whole material before him though in the case of complaints alleging commission of offence of defamation, the responsibility of a Magistrate to examine the material on record is of a higher degree. The order of issuing process against the accused/petitioners is, therefore, not sustainable in law, the Court said quashing the proceedings..[Read Judgment]