Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes defamation proceedings against Indian Express Resident Editor, others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday quashed the summons issued to certain newspaper editors and journalists including Indian Express Resident Editor by a Gurgaon court in defamation proceedings initiated by retired Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer Param Vir Rathee [Vipin Pubby v. State of Haryana and another]. .Those against whom the proceedings have been quashed include the current Indian Express Resident Editor Manraj Grewal, former Resident Editor Vipin Pubby, Daily Ajit (Punjabi) and Ajit Samachar (Hindi) Managing Editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard and others.Justice Anoop Chitkara concluded that the newspapers and their reporters had not committed any offence by publishing the news report concerning Rathee.“A complete reading of the news, which contained the complainant’s rebuttal, his version, the version of the police, can be stated to have been published in good faith and discharge of their functions in a democracy, and if restrictions are created to publish such news, it would be just like killing a mockingbird,” the Court said.The single-judge observed that courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of journalists. .It further remarked that a news reporter’s sacrosanct duty is towards the citizenry and they serve as an independent monitor of power and report information for public good and safety. It highlighted that in the “fearless pursuit of their duties” to uncover the truth and report such facts, brave journalists face various hurdles like pressures from influential parties, groups or government agencies. “To ensure honest and correct reporting of actual events, such journalists require the protection of courts, especially constitutional courts, to enable them to publish news without fear of harmful consequences. Thus, all courts must be more vigilant and proactive while safeguarding the interests of such courageous humans,” the Court stressed..Rathee in his 2008 complaint alleging defamation had named 18 major newspapers and alleged that he was shocked and deeply hurt by a news item in the The Indian Express under the title “Accused says he bribed ADGP, sought police protection”. It was reported in the news item that an accused had allegedly confessed before the Central Bureau of Investigation that Rathee had recommended police protection to the accused after taking a bribe from him. Rathee called the news item defamatory and baseless. .After hearing arguments, the Court opined that the news item published by The Indian Express pointed to investigative journalism where the complainant (Rathee)’s version was also reflected.It also noted that Rathee had nowhere stated that his version was incorrectly mentioned or that the journalist had withheld any material aspects. The Court also concluded that the complainant had not claimed any oblique motives or ill-will by journalists.“There is a conspicuous silence about it in the complaint, the statement before the court, and the reply filed to this petition,” it said..The Court observed that the journalist had adhered to the ethical standards of reasonableness and impartiality by taking Rathee’s view into account before writing the news. The reporter had explicitly mentioned Rather’s denial and corroboration of such denial from the police, it noted. It added that the cross-checking and accurate reporting of the complainant’s version demonstrates the journalist’s sense of responsibility and decency while prudently discharging his duties.Thus, the Court found The Indian Express, its reporter and its editors entitled to benefit of exceptions under Section 499 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code. “The reporter and the newspaper did their jobs without committing any offense under section 499 IPC because they exercised restraints, and the news had the inbuilt safeguards, due care and caution, and reasonableness in the reported news. The reporter, Varun Chaddha, and the publisher, Indian Express, acted within the parameters of prudency and reasonableness, and whatever they wrote, they were entitled to publish under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”.In the order quashing the summons against Ajit newspaper managing editor Barjinder Singh Hamdard, the Court noted that the complainant had primarily mentioned The Indian Express report and after that given a table with the names of other newspapers.The Court also found that Rathee had not satisfied the fundamental requirements under Section 499 IPC as there was no evidence that any members of public had read the news published in the Ajit Samjachar. “In addition to this there is another angle to disrupt the petitioner’s criminal trial. A bare perusal of the complaint and the alleged offending portion is just a correct reporting of statements given by Sh. Chautala and Sh. Ashok Arora; and the petitioner are entitled to protection under the first and ninth exceptions of Section 499 IPC,” it said further..Thus, the Court quashed the summons and subsequent proceedings against Hamdard as well. Advocate Manu K Bhandari represented petitioners Manraj Grewal and Vipin Pubby. Advocate KS Nalwa represented petitioner Barjinder Singh Hamdard.Advocates PS Poonia and Pulkit Dhanda represented the respondent Param Vir RatheeAdditional Advocate General Rajat Gautam represented the State of Haryana[Read Judgment]