J&K&L High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Newspaper Owner, Says Presumption Under 1867 Press Act Applies Only To Editor
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the statutory presumption regarding responsibility for publication of a newspaper operates only against the “Editor”. The Court clarified that the Act does not recognise other designations such as Chief Editor or Managing Editor for raising such presumption, though they...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the statutory presumption regarding responsibility for publication of a newspaper operates only against the “Editor”. The Court clarified that the Act does not recognise other designations such as Chief Editor or Managing Editor for raising such presumption, though they may still be prosecuted if specific allegations are made against them.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in connection with publication of allegedly defamatory material in a newspaper.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the statutory presumption under the 1867 Act cannot be extended to individuals holding other editorial designations unless specific allegations regarding their role in the publication are made. The Court observed,
“Act of 1867 does not recognize any other legal entity, namely, Chief Editor, Managing Editor etc., for raising a presumption, however, such individuals can be proceeded against only if there are specific allegations made against them. The Act of 1867 only recognizes Editor for the purpose of holding him responsible in any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of publication of the newspaper.”
Background:
The respondent had filed a complaint before the trial Magistrate alleging commission of the offence of defamation under Section 500 RPC against the petitioners. According to the complaint, the respondent was a businessman dealing in repair of computers and was running a shop at Samba. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 was the owner of the newspaper “Dainik Jagran”, while petitioner No.2 was the Chief Editor of the said newspaper.
The complainant alleged that a news item had been published in the newspaper stating that the respondent was an overground worker of militants and that he had been taken into custody along with other persons. The report further alleged that the respondent had links with top militants including Azhar Masood.
It was alleged in the complaint that the news item had been published without verifying the truth of the matter and that the publication had lowered the respondent's image in the eyes of his relatives and members of the public. The complainant further alleged that despite serving a legal notice upon the petitioners, they did not tender any apology.
The trial Magistrate, after recording the statements of the complainant and a witness, passed an order taking cognizance and issued process against the petitioners for commission of the offence under Section 500 RPC. Aggrieved, the petitioners approaced High Court.
Court's Observation:
The Court examined the statutory framework governing responsibility for publication of newspapers under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The Court noted that the Act defines an “Editor” as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper and the statutory scheme of the Act provides that when a person's name is printed as Editor in the newspaper, a presumption arises that such person is responsible for the selection of the material that is published.
The Court further observed that this statutory presumption is confined only to the Editor of the newspaper and does not extend to persons holding other editorial designations. It was noted that the Act does not recognise designations such as Chief Editor or Managing Editor for the purpose of raising the statutory presumption of responsibility for the publication of newspaper content.
The Court also observed that although such individuals are not covered by the statutory presumption, they may still be proceeded against if the complaint contains specific allegations demonstrating their role in the publication of the defamatory material.
Examining the allegations made in the complaint, the Court found that petitioner No.1 had been described only as the owner of the newspaper and that there were no specific allegations indicating that he had any role in the selection or publication of the impugned news item. The Court observed that in the absence of such allegations, continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1 could not be sustained.
With regard to petitioner No.2, the Court noted that the complaint contained allegations concerning his role connected with the publication of the newspaper. The Court observed that whether petitioner No.2 was responsible for the publication of the impugned news item would require examination by the trial court.
The High Court held that under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only the Editor of a newspaper is recognised for the purpose of raising a statutory presumption of responsibility for the content published in the newspaper, and that other editorial designations do not attract such presumption unless specific allegations are made.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the complaint and the order issuing process insofar as they related to petitioner No.1. However, the proceedings were permitted to continue against petitioner No.2 in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sanjay Gupta & Anr Vs Prem Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)