Today, On 22nd September, The Supreme Court, while hearing The Wire’s plea in a defamation case filed by ex-JNU professor Amita Singh, said, “Time has come to decriminalise all this,” tagging it with Rahul Gandhi’s pending matter.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition from the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which operates the digital media platform The Wire.
The petition challenges a summoning order related to a defamation case brought by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Amita Singh.
The Bench, consisting of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, issued a notice on the petition and linked it with other pending cases, including the one involving Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The defamation claims against The Wire arose from a report alleging that Professor Amita Singh led a group of JNU faculty members who created a 200-page dossier labeling the university as a “den of organised sex racket.”
Following this, Singh filed a criminal defamation complaint against the outlet.
During the proceedings, Justice Sundresh voiced concerns about the ongoing nature of such cases, stating,
“How long will you go on dragging this? Time has come to decriminalise all this.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing The Wire, agreed with the Court’s sentiment, noting the relevance of this issue in Rahul Gandhi’s case.
When Justice Sundresh suggested that the criminal defamation law needed re-evaluation, Sibal responded ,
“I completely agree,”
The Bench made it clear that the case would continue alongside other pending challenges on similar matters, with further hearings to follow.
It’s important to note that on May 7, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a plea from The Wire’s editor, who sought to quash the summons issued in Singh’s defamation case.
Singh, also the Chairperson of the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG) at JNU, argued that the article harmed her reputation and led to professional difficulties. She claimed that the article’s widespread circulation made her a target of a hate campaign.
In 2017, a trial court had issued summons against the accused individuals in this case, which were later contested in the Delhi High Court. The High Court quashed these summons in March 2023, prompting Singh to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court subsequently set-aside the High Court’s decision, stating that it should not have dismissed the summons at the initial stage without adequate evidence.
The case was then referred back to the Magistrate for new consideration, leading to fresh summons being issued in January. The petitioners later challenged the trial court’s summons before the Delhi High Court, invoking Section 223 of the BNSS, which stipulates that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offense on a complaint without allowing the accused a chance to be heard.
They argued that they had merely reported on the press conference and the dossier’s contents.
After reviewing both parties’ arguments, the High Court concluded,
“It is evident from the above narration that the Complaint had its genesis in the year 2016 and it was pending before the Apex Court on 01.07.2024 on which date the BNSS was made applicable.”
The High Court opined that if a legal proceeding had already been initiated under the previous law (CrPC) before the BNSS took effect, then the old law would continue to govern that case.
Also Read: What DY Chandrachud Said After CJI Gavai’s Subtle Dig Over Official Residence Row
The court rejected the petitioners’ assertion that there was no complaint pending after the High Court’s dismissal in March, deeming the argument specious.
It reiterated that in cases of appeals or revisions, the proceedings continue from the original case.
Since the summoning order in this matter originated from a complaint filed in 2016, the Court determined that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. were applicable, indicating that no prior notice was necessary before issuing the summons.
Case Title: Foundation of Independent Journalism v. Amita Singh