Can the owner of a newspaper be held liable for defamatory publication, Supreme Court answers

In a judgement rendered yesterday, the Supreme Court has pulled up the High Court of Karnataka for the lackadaisical manner in which it dropped charges against an accused in a defamation case, in a purported exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The Court has also answered the issue regarding liability of owner of a newspaper etc. with respect to the defamatory material carried by the newspaper..The case at hand had its genesis in a criminal defamation complaint filed against the owner and editors of a newspaper for an article alleged to be defamatory..Following the inaction of police authorities to register a complaint, the concerned Magistrate’s Court in Karnataka was approached by the complainant. Subsequently, the JMFC Court-II at Mangalore took cognizance of the defamation complaint through an order in April 2014..With a view to assail the said order, the owner of the publication preferred a revision petition before the concerned Sessions Court. When the Sessions Court dismissed the same, the owner approached the High Court of Karnataka, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC..The High Court proceeded to discharge the owner of liability. The Court accepted the argument made on behalf of the owner that no responsibility could be attributed to him as the law does not recognise vicarious criminal liability. .On an appeal made against the same by the original complainant, the Apex Court noted that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction under Section 482 to release the owner of all liability in this manner..The Judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer. The Court was assisted by Senior Advocate, MN Rao..The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its powers when it interfered by exercising powers under Section 482 before the case could be tried on evidence by the trial court..“Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent for any one of the abovementioned…offences is a matter that can be examined only after recording evidence at the time of trial. That can never be a subject matter of a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”.The High Court was found to have pronounced its verdict without adequate explanation as to the legal principles on which it was founded..“It is unfortunate that the High Court did not choose to give any reason whatsoever for quashing the complaint except a grand declaration that ‘it would lead to a miscarriage of justice’….… The High Court concluded that prosecution of the respondent would lead to miscarriage of justice. A conclusion without any discussion and without disclosing any principle which forms the basis of the conclusion. “.It also noted that the High Court had not properly appreciated the ratio in the case of KM Mathew, which it had found appropriate to distinguish from the case at hand..The complainant had relied on the said case of KM Mathew to argue that the owner was not exempt from liability in the defamation case. However, the High Court had distinguished it on the ground that the said case only expressly mentioned chief editors and persons other than the ‘owner’. On this aspect, the Supreme Court held,.“K.M. Mathew’s case has nothing to do with the question of vicarious liability. The argument in K.M. Mathew’s case was that in view of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 only the Editor of a newspaper could be prosecuted for defamation. Such a submission was rejected holding that Section 7 does not create any immunity in favour of persons other than the Editor of a newspaper. It only creates a rebuttable presumption that the person whose name is shown as the editor of the newspaper is responsible for the choice and publication of the material in the newspaper….…K.M. Mathew’s case made it clear that if a complaint contains allegations (which if proved would constitute defamation), person other than the one who is declared to be the editor of the newspapers can be prosecuted if they are alleged to be responsible for the publication of such defamatory material….…The High Court, in our opinion, without examining the ratio of K.M. Mathew’s case chose to conclude that the decision is distinguishable. The judgment of the High Court is absolutely unstructured leaving much to be desired.”.Regarding the extent to which a person may be liable for a defamatory publication under the Indian Penal Code, the Bench noted,.“…. the acts of printing or selling or offering to sell [for the offence of defamation] need not only be the physical acts but include the legal right to sell i.e. to transfer the title in the goods – the newspaper. Those activities if carried on by people, who are employed either directly or indirectly by the owner of the newspaper, perhaps render all of them i.e., the owner, the printer, or the person selling or offering for sale liable for the offences under Sections 501 or 502 IPC, (as the case may be) if the other elements indicated in those Sections are satisfied.”.Given the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, as well as the legal implications following, the Supreme Court opined that it may be important to examine the question of liability qua owners of the publication. It held,.“Where defamatory matter is printed (in a newspaper or a book etc.) and sold or offered for sale, whether the owner thereof can be heard to say that he cannot be made vicariously liable for the defamatory material carried by his newspaper etc. requires a critical examination.”.The High Court was found to have acted improperly in interfering in the case as casually as it did..“Neither prosecutions nor the power under Section 482 CrPC can be either conducted or exercised casually as was done in the case on hand.”.In consequence, the Court held.“The judgment under appeal cannot be sustained for the reasons indicated above. The same is, therefore, set-aside and the appeal is allowed. The trial court will now proceed with the case in accordance with law.”.Read Judgment below.