1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S……………….. OF 2022

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.5115-5118 OF 2021)

AROON PURIE …..APPELLANT(S)

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S………..……….. OF 2022

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5258-5261/2021)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO S………..……….. OF 2022

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.6392-6394/2021)

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order

dated 07.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

in Criminal M.C. Nos. 3492 of 2013, 4636 of 2013 and 1762 of

2

2014 filed by Mr. Aroon Purie; Mr. Parampreet Singh Randhawa &

Ors.; and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, respectively.

3. A news item

1 titled ‘Mission Misconduct’ was published in the

news magazine INDIA TODAY (for the period of 23.04.2007 to

30.04.2007) stating that in a string of embarrassments for the

foreign office, three Indian Officials posted in the Indian High

Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick succession following

serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance

of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants. The

Article also mentioned that the allegations were levelled against an

officer of the Indian Foreign Service posted in UK for soliciting

sexual favours from a local employee. The Article further stated

that said officer, now back in India, was facing disciplinary action

and when contacted said official denied the charges.

4. It appears that original accused No.12 whose identity is not

being disclosed, was working as a ‘Clerk Typist’ in the Consulate

General of India, Edinburgh and she had filed a complaint before

the Consel General alleging sexual harassment at the hands of

said officer. The complaint was made on 10.07.2006 (wrongly

mentioned as 10.07.2005 in certain documents placed on record).

1

“the Article” for short.

3

This was followed by another communication dated 05.03.2007 to

the Deputy High Commissioner , High Commission of India ,

London alleging continued sexual harassment at work place at the

instance of said officer. The record shows that the Ministry of

External Affairs by the order dated 08.03.2007 directed that said

officer be recalled and that said officer be placed under

suspension. On 15.03.2007 the complaint filed by accused No.12

was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs,

which issued an order on 21.03.2007 stating that disciplinary

proceedings were contemplated against said officer and that said

officer was placed under suspension. These developments were

prior to the publication of the Article.

5. Some of the developments which have occurred after the

publication of the Article included issuance of a memorandum

dated 21.05.2007 by the Ministry of External Affairs on the basis

of the complaint of accused No.12 by which explanation was

sought as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against

said officer “for sexual harassment of a woman at work place”.

Response was filed by said officer on 31.05.2007 and finally by

order dated 19.02.2009, disciplinary authority passed an order

4

imposing cut of 20% in pension allowable to said officer on

permanent basis. The order of the disciplinary authority was

upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 02.03.2010 and

also by the High Court vide order dated 26.07.2011.

6. In the meantime, on 24.03.2010, Complaint No. 584/1/2010

was filed by said officer against various persons including

Mr. Aroon Purie (A-1), Mr. Saurabh Shukla (A-2), Mr. Parampreet

Singh Randhawa (A-3), Mr. Sharat Sabharwal (A-4), Mr. Ashok

Kumar Mukherji (A-8) and other accused. It was submitted inter

alia that the Article was defamatory and as such the accused be

proceeded against for having committed offences punishable

under various sections including Sections 34, 120 B, 405, 468,

470, 471, 499, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Some

of the averments made in the complaint were as under:

“… Accused No. 01 herein, Mr. Aroon Purie, Editor-in-Chief of

the newsmagazine titled INDIA TODAY published by the

corporate entity titled “LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD” with its

registered office at “1-A HAMILTON HOUSE, CONNUGHT

PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001” for printing and publishing, in its

printed issue dated 30/04/2007, a fal se story of sexual

harassment against the Complainant, a senior-level officer of the

Ministry of External Affairs (now retired), based on

unsubstantiated, unverified, fabricated and malicious

information, having been written and filed by the said

Newsmagazine’s Correspondent Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Accused

No. 02 herein, in complicity with and at the behest of Accused

2

“IPC”, for short.

5

Nos. 03 to 12, named hereunder, as well as splashing the false

and defamatory story all over the world through the misuse of

the internet, and the World electronic network, as defined in the

law of information technology, with the permanent availability,

till date, of the scandalous/defamatory material on the Internet

vide its website www.indiatoday.com causing complainant’s

defamation, grave loss and injury of his personal and social

reputation, mental torture, agony, pain and a steep deterioration

of his health.

03. That this complaint is limited to the totally false, fabricated,

unsubstantiated unverified, malicious and defamatory story

written and filed by Mr. Saurabh Shukla, Accused No. 2, the

correspondent of the weekly newsmagazine titled INDIA TODAY,

whose reports, writings and activities are under the control and

supervision of Mr.Aroon Purie, Accused No. 1, the Editor-in-

Chief of the news magazine INDIA TODAY, who exercised full

control on the selection of the said defamatory story in the

newsmagazine INDIA TODAY’S issue dated 30

th

April, 2007,

contents of which were read world wide and were also splashed

on the internet vide website www.indiatoday.com. The

defamatory story is still continuing as part of the archives of the

said website www.indiatoday.com and, thus, the defamation of

the complainant and the damage and loss caused to his

reputation is continuing till the date of lodging this report for

action against the offenders and the guilty.

*** *** ***

06. That it is clear from the facts narrated in the 20-page

enclosure to this complaint that the defamatory publication was

the handiwork of Accused nos. 03 to 12, acting with common

intention, to brief the correspondent. Accused No. 02, Mr.

Saurabh Shukla, of the newsmagazine INDIA TODAY about the

false complaint of sexual harassment by Accused No. 12, a local

employee of the Consulate General of India at Edinburgh to

defame the applicant through the media and the criminal role

played by each of them, at the relevant time, warrants a

thorough investigation by the law enforcement agency for

appropriate action as may be deemed fit and proper within the

parameters of law as laid down i n the Code of Criminal

Procedure, and, once the charges against them are framed, in

terms of the appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code.

*** *** ***

15. That for their criminal acts of omission and commission,

the high-ranking officers and middle-level officials allowed

themselves to be misused and through the common intention of

harming and defaming the applicant through leaking the false,

fabricated and cooked up information in the media – vide the

published article in the weekly newsmagazine INDIA TODAY

6

dated 30/04/2007 and its splashing through internet through

their website www.indiatoday.com the false and

unsubstantiated allegation of sexual harassment against the

complainant even before any show cause notice was issued to

the complainant by the Ministry of External Affairs and thus

caused the Complainant grave loss of reputation and

defamation.

The complainant then prayed for reliefs as follows:

“(1) To take cognizance of the offences committed and

admit this complaint against accused persons arrayed as

Accused Nos. 01 to 12 in this complaint, record the statements

of the witnesses whose names and statuses are listed in the

enclosures and summon the accused persons, who may be put

on trial and punished in accordance with law;

(2) To invoke its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and order investigation by police

authorities, who has the necessary infrastructure for this

purpose, under Sections 34, 120B, 405, 468, 470, 471, 499,

SOU S 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections

65, 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against

the accused for initiation [sic] of criminal proceedings and trial

before this Hon’ble Court;”

7. The role ascribed to each of the accused was summed up by

Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court,

New Delhi vide order dated 20.04.2013 as under:

“9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further submitted that

while accused No.1 and 2 are the Editor in Chief and

Correspondent of India Today who are directly responsible for

the publication of the defamatory story against the complainant.

The remaining accused persons i.e. accused No.3, 4, 8, 12 were

in conspiracy with accused No.1 and 2 and were instrumental

in the publication of the impugned story which was based on a

false complaint filed by accused No.12 in the office of Indian

High Commission at London. Ld. Counsel for the complainant

has argued that involvement of accused No.3,4,8,12 is

established from the fact that although the complainant had

been simply recalled from his then place of posting at Edinburgh

vide order dated 08.3.2007 and it had not been mentioned in the

7

said order that any complaint filed by accused No.12 against the

complainant was pending investigation or that said complaint

was he reason behind premature recall of complainant Om

Prakash Bhola. However, the news article dated 30.04.2007 had

mentioned that the complainant had been recalled from his

place of posting in Edinburgh due to pendency of a complaint of

sexual misconduct made against him by a local employee. It has

been argued on behalf of the complainant that although the

complainant was served with the show cause notice. That is

memorandum on 21.05.2007 by the Ministry of External Affair

whereby he had been asked to explain the allegations made

against him by accused No.12. However, the news report was

published prior to even the service of the said show cause notice

upon him. Therefore, the staff of India Today News Magazine

could not have had the knowledge about the pendency of the

complaint of A12 against the complainant even before the

service of show cause notice upon the complainant that is on

30.04.2007, the date of publication of alleged news report

although the complainant had been served with the show cause

notice to explain allegations of sexual misconduct made against

him by accused No.12 after a lapse of about 21 days from the

date of publication of the said news report i.e. on 21.5.2007.

8. The Metropolitan Magistrate found sufficient material to

proceed against Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 500, 502 read with Section

120 B of the IPC. The operative part of the order was:

“After considering the materials placed on record by the

complainant and the arguments advanced by learned counsel

for complainant in the light of the aforecited observations made

by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decided case of Balraj

Khanna & Ors. vs. Moti Ram 1971 SCC (Crl) 647, Smt.

Nagawwa vs. Veraana Shivallngappa Konjaligi & Ors. 1976

SCC (Crl) 507 and M.N. Damani, vs. S.K. Sinha and other 2001

Cr. L.J. 2571 SC, I am of the considered opinion that the

material on record is prime facie sufficient to proceed against

the accused number 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 be accordingly

summoned on filing of PF on 05.07.2013.

8

9. Being aggrieved by the aforestated summoning order, A-1,

Editor in Chief of INDIA TODAY news magazine, preferred Criminal

M.C. No. 3492 of 2019 while A-2, the author of the Article preferred

Criminal M.C. No.1762 of 2014 and public servants from the

Ministry of External Affairs preferred Criminal M.C. No.4636 of

2013; all under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973

3

seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 20.04.2013

as well as Complaint No.584/1/2010 filed by the officer in

question.

10. These three petitions were taken up together by the High

Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the High

Court did not find any ground to interfere. It, therefore, dismissed

all the petitions. During the course of its judgment, the High Court

observed:

“28. The ingredients of section 499 IPC clearly point out towards

the imputation published in any form which also i nclude

newspaper. In case the petitioner is seeking the protection of an

exception under Section 499 IPC that stage is yet to come,

meaning thereby the submissions made by the petitioners are not

applicable at this stage. The conduct of the petitioner, since was

allegedly responsible for selection of the articles for publication

and had knowledge of the fact the publication of an

unsubstantiated story will irreparably harm and damage the

reputation of the complainant/respondent No. 2, still went ahead

and got the article published as a chief editor on 30.04.2007. …

3

“the Code”, for short.

9

35. Thus, the allegations and counter allegations made by the

parties raise disputed question of facts and cannot be dwelled

into by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

36. At this stage we need to see only the contents of the

complaint. The evidence of the accused cannot be considered at

this stage.”

11. We have heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel

for A-1, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General

of India appearing for public servants, namely; A-3, A-4 and A-8

and Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for A-2; while the

submissions on behalf said officer i.e., the original complainant

were advanced by Mr. R. Sathish, learned counsel.

12. It is submitted by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior

counsel that A-1 has been Editor-in-Chief of the news magazine

INDIA TODAY; that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press

and Registration of Books Act, 1867

4 would get attracted in case

of an Editor and not with respect to an Editor-in-Chief. It is further

submitted that in order to make A-1 liable for the Article, the

involvement of A-1 beyond the mere allegation about the capacity

held by him as Editor-in-Chief, had to be made with clarity. There

being no such allegation or averment, A-1 was entitled to the relief

as prayed for.

4

“1867 Act”, for short.

10

13. Ms. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted

that the public servants were not involved with the publication of

the Article at any stage. Whatever actions the public servants had

taken, were in the nature of due and prompt reporting of events to

the higher authorities, so that appropriate action could be taken

by such authorities. The acts committed by the public servants

would thus be fully protected and cannot amount to commission

of any offence.

14. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for A-2 has sought

to adopt the submissions of Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior

counsel appearing for A-1 and submitted that due care was taken

before writing the Article including asking said officer for his

response.

15. Mr. R. Sathish, learned counsel for said officer has submitted

that at best, the case pleaded by the appellants would be one

claiming benefit of any of the exceptions to Section 499, IPC and

as observed by the High Court, the proper stage to go into such

issues would be at the stage of trial and not through petition under

Section 482 of the Code.

11

16. In K.M. Mathew vs. K.A. Abraham & Ors.

5, the appellant

in the lead matter was the Chief Editor of Malayalam Manorama.

Relying on Section 7 of the 1867 Act, it was contended on his

behalf that there being another person, who was an Editor of said

publication, said Editor alone could be charged for the offence

under Section 500 of the IPC in view of the statutory presumption

under Section 7 of the 1867 Act. The submission that because of

non-mentioning of “Chief Editor” in Section 7, said appellant would

be entitled to the relief, was rejected by this Court, observing, inter

alia, that the complainant had specifically alleged that said

appellant had knowledge of the publication and that he was

responsible for such publication. Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and

16 of the decision are as under: -

“8. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act,

1867 reads as follows:

“7. Office copy of declaration to be prima facie

evidence.—In any legal proceeding whatever, as well

civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such

declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of

some court empowered by this Act to have the

custody of such declaration, or, in the case of the

editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name

printed on it as that of the editor shall be held (unless

the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as

against the person whose name shall be subscribed

to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper,

as the case may be that the said person was printer

or publisher, or printer and publisher (according as

the words of the said declaration may be) of every

portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall

5

(2002) 6 SCC 670.

12

correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned

in the declaration or the editor of every portion of that

issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced.”

9. The expression “editor” has also been defined in Section

1 of the Act as under:

“1. (1) * * *

‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection

of the matter that is published in a newspaper:”

10. It is also relevant to quote Section 5(1) of the Act:

“5. Rules as to publication of newspapers.—No newspaper

shall be published in India, except in conformity with the

rules hereinafter laid down:

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 3,

every copy of every such newspaper shall contain the

names of the owner and editor thereof printed clearly

on such copy and also the date of its publication:

(2) * * *”

xxx xxx xxx

14. A conjoint reading of these provisions will go to show

that in the case of publication of any newspaper, each copy

of the publication shall contain the names of the owner and

the editor who have printed and published that newspaper.

Under Section 7 of the Act, there is a presumption that the

editor whose name is printed in the newspaper as editor

shall be held to be the editor in any civil or criminal

proceedings in respect of that publication and the

production of a copy of the newspaper containing his name

printed thereon as editor shall be deemed to be sufficient

evidence to prove that fact, and as “editor” has been defined

as the person who controls the selection of the matter that

is published in a newspaper, the presumption would go to

the extent of holding that he was the person who controlled

the selection of the matter that was published in the

newspaper. But at the same time, this presumption

contained in Section 7 is a rebuttable presumption and it

will be deemed as sufficient evidence unless the contrary is

proved. Therefore, it is clear that even if a person’s name is

printed as editor in the newspaper, he can still show that

he was not really the editor and had no control over the

selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper.

Section 7 only enables the court to draw a presumption that

the person whose name was printed as editor was the editor

13

of such newspaper, if the publication produced in the court

shows to that effect.

15. The contention of the appellants in these cases is that

they had not been shown as Editors in these publications

and that their names were printed either as Chief Editor,

Managing Editor or Resident Editor and not as “Editor” and

there cannot be any criminal prosecution against them for

the alleged libellous publication of any matter in that

newspaper.

16. The contention of these appellants is not tenable. There

is no statutory immunity for the Managing Editor, Resident

Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the

alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over

which these persons exercise control. In all these cases, the

complainants have specifically alleged that these appellants

had knowledge of the publication of the alleged defamatory

matter and they were responsible for such publication; and

the Magistrates who had taken cognizance of the offence

held that there was prima facie case against these

appellants. It was under such circumstances that the

summonses were issued against these appellants.”

17. It is thus clear from this decision that though the

presumption under Section 7 is available with regard to the Editor,

even a Chief Editor can be proceeded against if the facts so justify.

In the concerned cases, there were specific and sufficient

allegations about the roles played by said Chief Editor and other

similarly situated persons from the connected matters.

18. We now turn to the question: whether the benefit of any of

the exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC can be availed of and on

the strength of such exceptions, the proceedings can be quashed

14

at the stage when an application moved under Section 482 of the

Code is considered?

19. In Jawaharlal Darda & Ors. Vs. Manoharrao Ganpatra o

Kapsikar & Anr.

6, the reporting made by a newspaper about the

proceedings in the Legislative Assembly touching upon the issues

of misappropriation of Government funds meant for certain

projects, was the subject matter of complaint alleging defamation.

The decision shows that the article being accurate and true

reporting of the proceedings of the House, which was reported in

good faith in respect of conduct of public servants entrusted with

public funds intended to be used for public good, the protection

was extended and the power under Section 482 of the Code was

utilised. Paragraph 5 of the decision is as under: -

“5. It is quite apparent that what the accused had published

in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of the

proceedings of the Assembly. Involvement of the respondent

was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the

Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version

of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith

it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation

of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public

conduct of public servants who were entrusted with public

funds intended to be used for public good. Thus the facts

and circumstances of the case disclose that the news items

were published for public good. All these aspects have been

overlooked by the High Court.”

6

(1998) 4 SCC 112.

15

20. Similarly, in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande vs. Uttam

7,

a reporting made to a superior officer alleging misconduct on the

part of complainant was taken to be completely protected by

exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC and the proceedings were

quashed. The relevant portion from paragraph 7 of the reported

decision is as under: -

“7. … Under such circumstances the fact that the

accused persons had made a report to the superior officer

of the complainant alleging that he had abused the Treasury

Officer in a drunken state which is the gravamen of the

present complaint and nothing more, would be covered by

Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860. By

perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we

are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made

out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused

persons to face trial or even to approach the Magistrate

afresh for reconsideration of the question of issuance of

process would not be in the interest of justice. On the other

hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for

quashing the order of issuance o f process and the

proceedings itself. …”

21. It is thus clear that in a given case, if the facts so justify, the

benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended

and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of

exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial.

22. Similarly, the law laid down in K.M. Mathew

8, which has

subsequently been followed, is to the effect that though the benefit

7

(1999) 3 SCC 134.

8

supra at footnote No.5.

16

of presumption under Section 7 of the 1867 Act is not applicable

so far as Chief Editors or Editors-in-Chief are concerned, the

matter would be required to be considered purely from the

perspective of the allegations made in the complaint. If the

allegations are sufficient and specific, no benefit can be extended

to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Conversely, it would

logically follow that if there are no specific and sufficient

allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of the fact

that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or

Editor-in-Chief.

23. In light of these principles, if we consider the assertions and

allegations made in the complaint, we find that nothing specific

has been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief. He cannot, therefore,

be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article,

namely, A-2. The allegations made in the complaint completely fall

short of making out any case against A-1.

24. With regard to the role ascribed to A-2, it must be stated at

this stage that as an author of the Article his case stands on a

different footing. Whether what he did was an act which was

justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at

the stage of trial.

17

25. Insofar as the public servants are concerned, they are not

primarily responsible for the Article and their responsibility, if at

all, is only to the extent that they either reported something

touching upon the complaint made by A-12 or in their capacity as

public servants, reported something to their seniors. Going by the

law laid down by this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande

9,

their actions are completely protected.

26. In the circumstances, we accept the appeals insofar as A-1

and the public servants (A-3, A-4 and A-8) are concerned and set

aside the summoning order, as well as, quash Complaint

No.584/1/2010 lodged against them. W e, however, reject the

appeal preferred by A-2.

Ordered accordingly.

……………………………..CJI .

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

………………………………..J.

[Bela M. Trivedi]

New Delhi;

October 31, 2022.

9

Supra at footnote No.7.