The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal defamation case against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick, holding that reporting which is factually correct cannot amount to defamation. The case arose from a 2010 article published in a magazine discussing alleged irregularities in the functioning of various non-governmental organisations in India. The article included references that the complainant, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) and its director Ravi Nair, claimed were defamatory. They argued that the article contained insinuations linking their organisation with financial misconduct and money laundering.
Although the article had been available since 2010, the complainant filed the defamation case only in 2014, asserting that he became aware of it being accessible online at that later stage. In 2018, the trial court issued a summoning order against Nilanjana Bhowmick after taking cognisance of the complaint. The proceedings against other persons mentioned in the complaint were eventually closed, and Bhowmick approached the High Court in 2021 seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order.
The High Court examined the content of the article and concluded that the statements challenged by the complainant were factually accurate and did not contain any false imputations. The court clarified that merely reporting allegations or controversies surrounding NGOs does not become defamatory if the reporting does not distort facts or make false claims. The article had stated that certain NGOs, including the complainant’s, had been the subject of scrutiny, but nowhere did it state that the complainant had been indicted or found guilty in any investigation. Instead, it presented the information in the context of broader discussions about the NGO sector.
The Court noted that the complainant’s objection was based largely on the fact that the statements were unpalatable to him rather than incorrect. Defamation cannot be established simply because an individual or institution takes offence to accurate reporting. The Court reaffirmed that for defamation to be made out, there must be false statements published with the intent to harm reputation. Statements that are truthful and not misleading do not meet this threshold, even if they are critical or unwelcome.
Another significant aspect of the judgment was the finding that the complaint was barred by limitation. The High Court observed that the complainant had been aware of the publication in 2010 itself, as it was available in the public domain. The four-year delay in initiating prosecution was held to be unjustified. The Court held that the explanation offered by the complainant for the delay — that he learned of the article’s availability online only in 2014 — was insufficient to extend the period of limitation. Therefore, the complaint was legally time-barred, providing an additional ground for quashing the proceedings.
In conclusion, the Court set aside the summoning order and quashed the criminal complaint, bringing an end to the proceedings against Nilanjana Bhowmick. The ruling underscores that journalists cannot be prosecuted for defamation when they accurately report facts, and that the law on limitation cannot be circumvented through delayed claims of knowledge about published material.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.