Jammu and Kashmir High Court refuses to quash defamation trial against Greater Kashmir

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently declined to quash a defamation case against English daily, Greater Kashmir over the publication of two reports concerning certain government land which was entrusted to run a school [Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo vs. Tej Kishan Ganjoo]..Justice Rahul Bharti opined that it is for the trial court to examine the intent of the two newspaper articles and gauge whether they are defamatory. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the plea to set aside the trial and lifted an earlier stay imposed on the hearing of the case by the trial court."The intent and impression of the two news items as per the complainant is what constitutes the defamation and it is not for this Court to now substitute itself in place of the trial court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub Judge), Jammu to appreciate the defence of the petitioners in response to a criminal complaint so filed by the respondent and taken cognizance of," the Court said. .The case concerned two reports published in 2016. While one report alleged the illegal sale of the land for ₹13 crores to a private party, a second report claimed that the concerned authorities had done nothing to tackle illegal encroachment on the said land..The reports led the chairman of the management committee of the school which was housed on the property, namely DAV Public Secondary School, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar to file a defamation complaint against Greater Kashmir in 2017.A trial court later ordered that an inquiry be conducted into the matter. Following the inquiry, the trial court took cognisance of the case and issued process against Greater Kashmir and its representatives, as well as the author of the allegedly defamatory article..This was challenged before the High Court by the newspaper's editor-in-chief, Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo, its publisher Rashid Makhdoomi and correspondent Syed Rizwan Geelani (the three accused).On December 27, 2019, the High Court had stayed the proceedings in the criminal complaint against the three accused petitioners..However, on April 19 this year, the High Court dismissed their petition and ordered the trial court to resume hearing the case. .The counsel for the accused petitioners had earlier urged that the case be quashed by relying on the judgment in Aditya Raj Kaul vs Nayeem Akhter, 2021, wherein the High Court had quashed a defamation complaint against Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and journalist Aditya Raj Kaul. .Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashes defamation case against Arnab Goswami, Aditya Raj Kaul.In that case, the High Court had also noted that there was no imputation or allegation made by Republic TV itself or its anchors in its broadcast, but that the anchors had simply referred to another person's letter. .However, in the present case, the High Court noted that Greater Kashmir had itself made certain allegations and imputations and had also not cited any other source for the said information. Therefore, Justice Rahul Bharti opined that the judgment in the Aditya Raj Kaul case would not aid the petitioners. "Least this Court can observe is that the two news articles are too loose ended in terms of its impression that it is prima-facie more on the sensationalization and scandalizing side of the news items rather than on apprising the General Public about state of facts obtaining regarding which the news items were meant to be published to enlighten the general public mind," the Court added. .The Court further observed that while Greater Kashmir and its representatives may have a valid defence regarding the good intent of their news articles and the source of their information, these are all matters for the trial court to examine and not the High Court. .Therefore, the High Court proceeded to reject the petition and ordered the continuation of the trial. .Advocate Navyug Sethi appeared for Greater Kashmir, its publisher, editor and its correspondent, while Senior Advocate CM Koul and advocate AR Bhat appeared on behalf of the complainant..[Read Order]