The court of the Karnataka High Court has held that the editor of a newspaper is guilty of defamation for publishing articles against a police inspector, reversing a previous acquittal by the trial court. The case was brought by S. N. Suresh Babu, a circle inspector of police at K.R. Police Station in Mysuru, who appealed after the trial court absolved the accused editor, T. Gururaj, of liability. The bench headed by S. Rachaiah noted that the allegations made in the newspaper had not been substantiated by any formal complaints by the public or investigations by higher authorities, and that publication of the defamatory statements caused harm to the reputation of the inspector. The court convicted the editor under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (‘criminal defamation’) and under Section 501 of the IPC (publishing or repeating defamatory matter) and sentenced him to undergo six months of simple imprisonment under each section, accompanied by a fine of Rs 2,000 under each count.
The facts of the case as discerned by the court show that in August 2004 the newspaper operated by the editor published articles that alleged the inspector was receiving bribes, allowing persons to play a single-number lottery, and accepting illegal payments from parking agents for allowing parking near Chamundi Hill. The inspector had arrested the accused and sent him to the concerned court, after which the accused is said to have made changes in the newspaper to publish the defamatory allegations in revenge. These articles, the court found, went beyond honest criticism or public interest commentary because there was no independent complaint or investigation supporting the factual basis of the allegations. The trial court, when it initially heard the matter, considered the evidence and records and had acquitted the accused. However, the High Court found that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was held that once the publication of defamatory material is proved, the burden shifts to the person who published it to show that the publication was in the public interest and that the allegations were true.
On examination of both oral and documentary evidence, the High Court concluded that the editor had published words or statements causing harm to the reputation of the inspector. The editor’s defense that the publication was aimed at correcting wrongdoing and was in the interest of the public was rejected by the court, on the basis that no official action by the higher authorities or any substantiated complaint supported the allegations. The court emphasised that making baseless allegations to defame an individual amounts to defamation. It found that because the allegations were denied and no formal mechanism had taken action, the publication could not be said to have been responsible journalism. The High Court therefore held that the findings of the trial court were liable to be set aside and proceeded to convict the editor accordingly.
The court’s decision underscores the legal position that when defamatory matter is published, the publisher bears the burden of proving that the statements were truthful and published in the public interest. Here, the absence of any complaints or investigations by the public against the officer meant that the allegations published lacked substantiation and therefore constituted defamation. The court’s orders hold that the editor is now subject to the punishment prescribed under the IPC for criminal defamation and unlawful publication of defamatory material.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.