Supreme Court quashes defamation case against ToI journos

The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized the critical role of responsible journalism, observing that while the press has immense power to shape public perception, reckless reporting can have severe and lasting consequences [Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Ltd.]. .A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stressed that journalists must ensure accuracy and fairness when publishing content, especially when it affects the reputation of individuals or institutions.“The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring,” the Court said..The observations where made while quashing a criminal defamation case against Times of India Editorial Director Jaideep Bose and other journalists of the newspaper who were accused of publishing defamatory articles about an art auction house. .The case stemmed from a 2014 complaint by M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited, which alleged that articles in Times of India and Economic Times cast doubts on the authenticity of paintings auctioned by the company.The Karnataka High Court had quashed the case against Bennet Coleman & Co. (ToI's publisher) but refused to quash the case against the journalists who worked for the paper. The Supreme Court found serious procedural irregularities in the Magistrate’s summoning order and ruled that the complainant had failed to provide evidence that the articles had harmed its reputation in the eyes of others..“No material has also been placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers. Irrespective of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed,” the top court said..The Court also noted that the High Court only considered one article and failed to examine the individual roles of all the accused before dismissing their plea.“While passing the impugned order, the High Court referred only to one article authored by Ms. Neelam Raj (A4) and neither took into account nor discussed the other news articles authored by the remaining accused.”, the apex court opined. .Additionally, the Court criticized the Magistrate for failing to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before issuing summons, particularly since some of the accused resided outside Karnataka.."The Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with section 202(1) Cr.P.C. However, no such inquiry was conducted in the present case," the Court noted while quashing the proceedings..However, while ruling in favor of the accused, the bench reiterated the importance of journalistic responsibility, stating that media professionals, particularly those in key editorial positions, must exercise "utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.".[Read Order]