Supreme Court dismisses a defamation case against the newspaper owner for a report against an advocate, citing the publication as being done in good faith.
Case Title: Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey
Case No: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020
Decided on: 29th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Facts of the Case
A defamation case was lodged against the proprietor of the ‘Sunday Blast’ daily newspaper situated in Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from a 2013 article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader). Despite the initial dismissal of the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Court reinstated it. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently affirmed the reinstatement, leading the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue
The central issue in this case pertains to a defamation complaint against the owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper, focusing on an article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader) published in 2013.
Legal Provision
According to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinions freely.
According Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a criminal defamation case against a newspaper owner related to an article about an advocate. The court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, which cited the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, concurring with the Magistrate, affirmed that the news article was published in good faith, exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate’s decision was neither illegal nor unjustified, and there is no need for intervention by the Sessions Court or the High Court. Consequently, all proceedings based on the complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed against the accused appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad