The legal tussle between an online news portal and a former professor of a premier Indian university has brought to the fore critical questions about the issuance of summons in defamation cases. This case revolves around allegations made in a publication and the subsequent legal proceedings that questioned the procedural propriety of summoning the editors of the news portal.
Background of the Dispute
In April 2016, an online news portal published an article alleging that a group of professors from a renowned university had compiled a dossier depicting the institution as a "den of organised sex racket." The article claimed that the former professor led this group. Feeling aggrieved, the professor filed a criminal defamation complaint against several individuals, including the editor and deputy editor of the news portal, under Sections 499, 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.
Magistrate's Summoning Order
Based on the complaint, a metropolitan magistrate issued summons to the editor and deputy editor of the news portal in January 2017. The magistrate relied on the depositions of the complainant's witnesses but did not examine the actual publication in question. Moreover, there was no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to support the electronic evidence, which is a prerequisite for admissibility of electronic records.
Delhi High Court's Intervention
The editors challenged the summoning order in the Delhi High Court, arguing that there was insufficient material to justify the summons. In March 2023, the High Court quashed the summons, observing that the magistrate had not examined the actual publication and had relied solely on witness depositions. The court noted that the article did not contain any defamatory statements against the complainant and that the absence of a Section 65B certificate rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible.
Supreme Court's Reassessment
The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in July 2024, set aside the Delhi High Court's order. The apex court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by delving into the merits of the case at the summoning stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the magistrate should have examined the actual publication before issuing summons and remitted the matter back to the magistrate for fresh consideration.
Procedural Nuances and Legal Implications
The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal defamation cases. The absence of a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence and the magistrate's failure to examine the actual publication were significant procedural lapses. The Supreme Court's decision to remit the case emphasizes the need for magistrates to exercise due diligence and for higher courts to respect the boundaries of their jurisdiction during preliminary stages of criminal proceedings.
Conclusion
This legal saga highlights the delicate balance between freedom of the press and protection of individual reputation. It also brings to light the critical importance of procedural propriety in the criminal justice system. As the case returns to the magistrate for reconsideration, it serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding both constitutional rights and the integrity of legal processes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.