The Supreme Court today quashed the criminal defamation case against the 'Chairperson of India Today Group', Aroon Purie, in relation to a news item titled 'Mission Misconduct' which was published by India Today magazine in its edition dated April 30, 2007. However, the court did not grant relief to the author of the news article. The bench comprising Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi ruled that the government officials and editor should be granted relief.

"We will grant relief to the government servant and the editor but not the correspondent," the Court recorded.

The news article in question reported the allegations against the then Indian deputy consul general in Edinburgh, O.P. Bhola. The article reported that "Allegations of soliciting sexual favour leading to a probe which revealed financial irregularities and fudging of bills. Consequently, the official is back in India and is facing disciplinary action."

The special leave petition was filed in response to the Delhi High Court's refusal to dismiss a criminal defamation complaint and summons against Aroon Purie in relation to an article published in India Today magazine in 2007. The Court stayed the proceedings against Purie while issuing notice on the petition in August 2021.

After the complaint was lodged, the trial court issued an order summoning Purie. Aroon Purie argued that the order should be quashed because it violated Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as well as Sections 196(2) and 197 CrPC.

Justice Yogesh Khanna stated that "The argument per Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 normally an editor can only be prosecuted cannot be adhered to. In K.M.Mathew vs. K.A.Abrahem and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2989, wherein the complainant has alleged either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor had knowledge and were responsible for publishing defamatory matters in respect of newspaper publication and in none of these cases the Editor had come forward and pleaded guilty to the effect he was the person responsible for selecting the alleged defamatory matter published, the Supreme Court held it was a matter of evidence in each case and if the complaint is allowed to proceed only against the editor whose name is printed in the newspaper against whom there is a statutory presumption under Section 7 of the Act and in case such editor succeeds in proving that he was not the editor having control over the selection of alleged libelous matter published in the newspaper, the complainant would be left without any remedy left to redress the arguments against the real culprits."

Case Details:

Aroon Purie V. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5115­-5118/2021