CITATION- 2024 INSC 66
DATE OF JUDGMENT- FEBRUARY 29, 2024.
COURT- THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT- SANJAY UPADHYA
RESPONDENT- ANAND DUBEY
BENCH- B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India addressed a criminal appeal arising from a defamation complaint filed by Anand Dubey against Sanjay Upadhya. The complaint was based on the publication of a news article in Upadhya’s newspaper, “Sunday Blast,” alleging that Dubey was involved in a false case, which was allegedly defamatory in nature. Initially, the lower court rejected Dubey’s complaint, in response to this action taken by the court, Dubey filed a revision petition, which was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court. Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the lower court’s rejection of Dubey’s complaint was justified. The publication has been in a good faith and within the bounds of Upadhya’s constitutional rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and quashed all proceedings against Upadhya under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Sanjay Upadhya, the appellant, owns the newspaper “Sunday Blast” with its registered office in Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh, India. An article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” was published dated February 24, 2013 edition of the newspaper, “Sunday Blast.”
- Anand Dubey, the respondent, filed a defamation complaint against Upadhya based on the content of the article. Dubey alleged that the published article falsely accused him of involvement in a case without verifying the facts and truths, which harmed his reputation which amounts to damage. The complaint was filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which amounts to criminal defamation.
- The initial complaint was rejected by the lower court, stating that the Upadhya’s freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution grants him the right to publish such sort of content.
- Dubey pursued the matter in the courts through revision petitions, leading to decisions by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in his favour. Upadhya appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court of India.
- The Supreme Court granted leave to hear the appeal and rendered a judgment in favour of Upadhya, overturning the decisions of the lower courts and the High Court.
- The Supreme Court held that the publication was made in good faith and within the bounds of Upadhya’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.
- Hence, all proceedings against Upadhya under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the publication of the news article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” in the newspaper, “Sunday Blast” leads to criminal defamation against Anand Dubey?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
- One of the major arguments was that the publication of the article comes within his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It was proposed that he had a legitimate reason to publish the article and it was done in good faith.
- Another argument posed was that there was absence of Malice. The appellant asserts that there was no malicious intent behind the publication of the article and it was based on factual information available at the time.
- Upadhya, the appellant emphasized the role of press in reporting news and information of public interest. He argued that the article was published in the public interest and served the purpose of informing about relevant events.
- It was contended that the article did not contain any defamatory statements against Dubey and the statements made were based on facts and reasonable belief.
- Legal Precedents and case law supporting his contentions were presented, that proved the publication of the article does not amount to criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDANT
- One of the major contentions posed by respondent were that the article published in the “Sunday Blast” newspaper contained false statements about him. He stated that the article was based on false statements and damaging to his reputation in public.
- Dubey contended that Upadhya failed to verify the information before publishing it and responsible journalism requires fact-checking to avoid spreading false information.
- Dubey emphasised that Upadhya published the defamatory article with the intention of harming his reputation in public.
- Dubey presented various evidences and arguments regarding the reasons behind the negative affect of this article.
- Another contention posed was the violation of Privacy
- Dubey cited relevant laws and precedents to support his contention that the publication of defamatory material warrants legal action under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court granted leave to hear Sanjay Upadhya’s appeal against Anand Dubey’s defamation complaint. After Reviewing the decisions taken by lower courts, it was found that the publication in Upadhya’s newspaper fell within the bounds of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 of Indian Constitution. It was determined that the publication was made in good faith without malice, and the Court quashed proceedings initiated under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. All actions against Upadhya were dismissed, allowing the appeal and ruling in his favour.
ANALYSIS
The supreme court upheld Sanjay Upadhya’s freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 of Indian Constitution, finding the publication was made in good faith. It dismissed Anand Dubey’s defamation complaint, ruling in favour of Upadhya and quashing all proceedings against him under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Sanjay Upadhya’s freedom of speech and expression while dismissing Anand Dubey’s defamation complaint marks a significant reaffirmation of constitutional rights. By ruling in Upadhya’s favour, the importance of responsible journalism was emphasised. This judgment serves as a reminder of the balance between freedom of speech and protecting individuals from unjust harm to their reputation.
REFERENCES
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14480/14480_2020_3_1504_49957_Judgement_29-Jan-2024.pdf
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-monthly-round-up-january-2024-249099
This is written by Nyasa Tahim, student of Vivekananda Institute of professional studies (VIPS); Intern at Legal Vidhya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
