Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 499, 500
Criminal defamation — Ingredients — Publication based on public record
Publication based substantially on public records and official documents, without embellishment, does not per se constitute defamation — Truthful reporting of facts drawn from public records, if made in good faith, attracts the protection of the First Exception to Section 499 IPC.
[Paras 5.2, 18, 52–55, 60–64]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 202, 204, 482
Quashing of process — Scope
High Court can quash criminal proceedings where the complaint, even if taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence — Criminal law should not be permitted to be used as a tool for harassment or intimidation.
[Paras 9.4–9.9, 55–57, 99–103]
Defamation — Per se defamatory statements — Test
Statements are not defamatory per se merely because they are critical or uncomfortable — To constitute defamation, imputations must lower the moral or intellectual character of the complainant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
[Paras 5.2, 56–58]
Defamation — Mens rea — Requirement
Mens rea is a necessary ingredient of criminal defamation — Absence of malice, coupled with bona fide journalistic conduct, negatives the offence under Section 499 IPC.
[Paras 5.5, 61–63, 71–73]
Journalism — Questionnaire — Fair opportunity
Issuance of a questionnaire seeking the version of the person concerned prior to publication, and publication of substantial portions of the reply, evidences bona fides and militates against allegation of malice.
[Paras 5.5, 62–64]
Defamation — Public figures — Higher threshold
Public figures and persons connected with public life must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny — Criminal defamation cannot be invoked to stifle investigative journalism on matters of public interest.
[Paras 5.3, 66–69, 74–76]
Editors / Publishers — Vicarious liability
Criminal liability for defamation cannot be mechanically fastened on editors and persons connected with publication without specific averments of their role and intent — Vicarious liability is unknown to criminal law except where statutorily provided.
[Paras 56, 78–83]
Abuse of process — Chilling effect on free speech
Allowing prosecution to continue in absence of prima facie defamation would have a chilling effect on free speech and investigative reporting — Courts must prevent misuse of criminal process.
[Paras 97–103]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Essential Ingredients of Criminal Defamation
The Court reiterates that for an offence under Sections 499–500 IPC, the following must coexist:
-
Making or publishing an imputation;
-
Concerning a person;
-
With intention, knowledge or reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation.
Absent mens rea or defamatory imputation, criminal prosecution cannot survive (Paras 56–58, 61).
B. Public Record, Truth, and Good Faith
A central legal finding is that:
-
The article was substantially based on publicly available records (ROC filings, financial statements).
-
Truthful reporting of such records, without distortion, falls within Exception 1 to Section 499 IPC.
-
Public good and good faith are evident from the nature and source of information (Paras 60–64).
C. Role of Mens Rea
The Court gives significant weight to:
-
Sending a questionnaire;
-
Receiving a detailed reply;
-
Publishing substantial portions of the response.
This conduct negates deliberate intent to defame and demonstrates journalistic fairness (Paras 62–64).
D. Public Figures and Democratic Accountability
Relying on constitutional jurisprudence, the Court holds that:
-
Individuals connected with public power or political families cannot claim insulation from scrutiny.
-
Criminal defamation should not be used to silence critical reporting on matters having public ramifications (Paras 66–76).
E. Limits of Magistrate’s Power at Section 202 Stage
Although the scope of inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is limited, the Magistrate must still ensure that:
-
The complaint discloses a prima facie offence;
-
The essential ingredients are made out.
Mechanical issuance of process, without applying mind to the statutory exceptions, amounts to legal error (Paras 9.4–9.9, 99–101).
F. Abuse of Criminal Process
The Court strongly cautions that:
-
Criminal defamation must not become a weapon of vendetta.
-
Continuation of proceedings in the absence of offence would be an abuse of process warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC (Paras 97–103).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)
-
Impugned article titled “The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah” was published on The Wire (Paras 4.1–4.2).
-
Article relied on ROC data and financial disclosures (Paras 5.2, 60).
-
Prior to publication, a questionnaire was sent and a reply received (Paras 5.5, 62).
-
Substantial portions of the reply were published (Paras 62–64).
-
Magistrate issued process under Sections 500/114 IPC after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC (Para 4.7).
-
Petitioners invoked Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing (Para 3).
IV. FINAL HOLDING / RESULT
-
Complaint and order issuing process quashed.
-
Continuation of criminal proceedings held to be abuse of process of law.
-
Article held not per se defamatory and protected by exceptions to Section 499 IPC.
-
Criminal law cannot be invoked to suppress investigative journalism.
[Paras 101–109]
Ratio (Concise)
Truthful publication based on public records, made in good faith after seeking the affected party’s version, does not constitute criminal defamation; criminal process cannot be used to stifle investigative journalism or public scrutiny of matters of public interest.
