The Supreme Court resumed the defamation case of Ex-JNU Professor Amita Singh against ‘The Wire,’ involving allegations of a controversial dossier. Professor Singh contends the article tarnished her reputation, while ‘The Wire’ maintains it acted based on the understanding of a dossier’s existence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India resumed its hearing in the defamation case filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Professor Amita Singh against the news outlet ‘The Wire.’ This case, presided over by Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, delves into the complexities of defamation law, academic freedom, and the responsibilities of the press.
Professor Singh’s legal challenge stems from a report published by ‘The Wire,’ which she claims defamed her by alleging her involvement in preparing a dossier that labeled JNU as a “Den of Organised Sex Racket.”
ALSO READ: Mumbai Court Convicts Transgender Person for Kidnapping and Murdering Infant
The controversy began to unfold in 2016, leading to a criminal defamation lawsuit against the publication’s Editor and Deputy Editor. However, in a twist, the Delhi High Court quashed the summons issued against the accused in 2023, prompting Singh to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The apex court’s involvement began with a directive to JNU to verify the existence of the contentious dossier. The university subsequently reported back, stating it had no record of receiving any such document purportedly prepared by Professor Singh. This revelation adds another layer of intrigue to the case, questioning the basis of the allegations against her.
During the latest hearing, the petitioner’s counsel painted a picture of a university ensnared in political machinations, detracting from its academic mission.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Delhi High Court Withholds Decision on Shibu Soren’s Challenge Against Lokpal Proceedings
“Unfortunately, this (university) has come in grip of the politics.,”
– the counsel expressed
Highlighting the challenges faced by professors striving to maintain an academic focus amidst political interference. The counsel recounted an incident from March 14th, 2016, when a press conference was organized by concerned professors, including Singh, to advocate for an apolitical academic environment. However, the response to this initiative was not entirely positive, leading to further controversies.
The narrative took a contentious turn with the publication of an article in ‘The Wire’ on April 16th, which referenced a dossier and implicated a group of professors, led by Singh, in making baseless allegations against the university’s hostel.
“Now, if my name is not there, I am not concerned….But if you will name me, then I am directly linked to every content which is written there in the dossier,”
– the counsel argued, emphasizing the personal and professional stakes for Singh.
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing ‘The Wire,’ countered by highlighting the limited mention of Singh in the article, suggesting a misunderstanding about the dossier’s existence and Singh’s involvement. The court, however, steered the discussion back to the core issue of defamation, questioning the defamatory nature of the publication.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand High Court Raises Concern Over Misuse of Section 498A IPC
As the hearing concluded, Singh herself made a poignant appeal to the bench, seeking a moment to share her ordeal.
“I am the victim and the petitioner. If you could just give me 8 mins your lordship, in the last eight years of my suffering, I would be extremely pleased..”
Her request was met with an assurance from the bench that her voice would be heard.
As the Supreme Court adjourns the matter for further deliberation, the legal and societal implications of this case continue to resonate.