Recently, the Allahabad High Court granted Aroon Purie, the Chairman and Director of TV Today Network, approval to dismiss a criminal defamation case connected to a 2017 article published by Aajtak/India Today. The article revolved around the bail granted to former UP Minister Gayatri Prajapati in a case involving the alleged rape of a minor.

Former Uttar Pradesh District Judge Rajendra Singh filed the case against Purie, alleging that the article contained serious accusations. It suggested a deep-rooted conspiracy involving senior judges, extensive corruption in judicial appointments, handling sensitive cases, and the specific appointment of Mr. Om Prakash Mishra as a POCSO Judge on April 7, 2017, despite having only three weeks until retirement, a move that seemingly bypassed established norms.

The complaint further argued that the news piece insinuated misconduct within the judicial system. It implied that Judge Mishra, occupying a critical position, later granted bail to Prajapati. The judge contended that the article influenced the Supreme Court Collegium to withdraw its recommendation to appoint him as a high court judge. This raised doubts about his suitability due to the purported conspiracy linked to Prajapati's bail.

Aroon Purie and other employees from the India Today network, implicated in the case, countered the defamation allegations by asserting that the news article was published in good faith. They claimed the information was sourced from a high court communication to the Supreme Court in May 2017, implying authenticity and legitimacy in their reporting.

Their argument rested on the fact that the communication between the high court and the Supreme Court, concerning Singh's elevation and of a sensitive nature, wasn't part of the case record. This communication was provided to Singh's counsel in January 2018 without being challenged. Its content hinted at a clandestine inquiry into Prajapati's bail and the purported involvement of senior judges, eventually resulting in the retraction of the Collegium's recommendation.

Justice Rajeev Singh's bench referenced a Supreme Court precedent, highlighting that truthful and bona fide reporting does not indicate an intention to damage one's reputation. The court observed that the complainant hadn't contested the content of the confidential communication, which was considered privileged. This acknowledgment played a significant role in the court's evaluation of the case.

As a result, the single judge bench concluded that Aroon Purie's act of publishing the purportedly defamatory news piece fell within the exemptions outlined in Section 499 IPC. Specifically, it aligned with Exception (1), which pertains to truth disseminated for the public good, and Exception (3), which allows the expression of opinions on matters of public interest. This interpretation formed the basis for the court's decision in favor of Purie.

Considering these findings, the high court deemed the complaint an abuse of legal provisions and quashed the proceedings, allowing the application by Purie.