The Supreme Court found several serious procedural errors in the way the lower court issued summons against the journalists. It also ruled that the auction house had failed to provide any solid proof that the articles had actually harmed its reputation.
NEW DELHI: A defamation case against journalists of Times of India (ToI) and Economic Times (ET) has been quashed by the Supreme Court.
The case was originally filed in 2014 by M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited. The company alleged that news articles published in these newspapers raised doubts about the authenticity of paintings it had auctioned.
Earlier, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the case against Bennett Coleman & Co. (the publisher of ToI). However, it refused to dismiss the case against individual journalists, leaving them to face legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court found several serious procedural errors in the way the lower court had issued summons against the journalists. It also ruled that the auction house had failed to provide any solid proof that the articles had actually harmed its reputation.
The Court stated, “No material has also been placed before us to suggest that the auction was unsuccessful or that any damage or loss was actually caused, due to the alleged news articles published in the newspapers.”
The Supreme Court noted that even if there was any merit in the complaint, restarting the case at this stage would be pointless. The auction had already concluded, and too much time had passed since the complaint was first filed.
The Court said, “Irrespective of the same, at this stage, remanding the matter for fresh examination of witnesses before issuance of summons would serve no useful purpose, given the remote likelihood of securing witnesses. It would only prolong the litigation yielding little to no benefit especially, since the auction has already concluded and more than a decade has passed.”
The Supreme Court also criticized the Karnataka High Court for only reviewing one article while making its decision. It did not analyze the roles of all the accused journalists before rejecting their petition.
The Court noted, “While passing the impugned order, the High Court referred only to one article authored by Ms. Neelam Raj (A4) and neither took into account nor discussed the other news articles authored by the remaining accused.”
Another key issue highlighted by the Supreme Court was the Magistrate’s failure to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This inquiry is especially necessary when some of the accused do not live in the state where the case was filed.
The Court pointed out, “The Magistrate was required to proceed with the complaint in accordance with section 202(1) Cr.P.C. However, no such inquiry was conducted in the present case.”
Due to these procedural lapses, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the journalists and quashed the proceedings against them.
Even while ruling in favor of the journalists, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for media professionals to act responsibly. The Court stressed that journalists, especially those in key editorial roles, should be extremely careful before publishing any content.
The Court remarked, “Media professionals, particularly those in key editorial positions, must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions.”
[Case Title: Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Ltd.]
