[Aroon Purie case] Editor-in-Chief cannot be held liable for acts of reporter unless specific allegations are made: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that unless there were specific allegations against the Editor-in-Chief of a publication, he or she should not be held liable for acts committed by the author of an article. [Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors].Interpreting the benefit to be granted under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, a Bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi opined that the same was strictly to be judged from the allegations made in the complaint.“If the allegations are sufficient and specific, no benefit can be extended to such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Conversely, it would logically follow that if there are no specific and sufficient allegations, the matter would stand reinforced by reason of the fact that no presumption can be invoked against such Chief Editor or Editor-in-Chief,” the order authored by CJI Lalit stated..The observations came in the order of the apex court quashing the criminal defamation case against Chairperson of the India Today Group, Aroon Purie, in relation to a news item titled 'Mission Misconduct', which was published by India Today magazine in its edition dated April 30, 2007.The article reported that three Indian officials posted in the Indian High Commission at UK had to be recalled in quick following serious allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption in issuance of visas and sale of Indian passports to illegal immigrants.One of the officials subsequently filed a defamation case against Purie and other India Today reporters, following which a Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi found sufficient material to proceed against them. The Delhi High Court subsequently refused to interfere with a summoning order passed by the magistrate. This prompted the accused to move the apex court..The Court observed that based on the assertions and allegations in the complaint, there is nothing specific attributed against Purie.“He therefore cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the article, A2 (Saurabh Shukla). The allegations made in the complaint completely fall short of making out any case against A1,” the order stated.The Bench was also answered the query of whether criminal proceedings can be quashed taking benefit of any exception available under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. It held that in a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of exception can be extended and there is no rigid principle that the benefit can be availed only on the stage of trial..Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan appeared for Purie. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the public servants named, and advocate Hrishikesh Baruah appeared for the India Today group. Advocate R Sathish appeared for the original complainant.[Read order]