Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Order Summoning Journalists On Lawyer's Defamation Complaint Over Brij Bhushan's Letters To CM

For context, in the said letter, the lawyer in question was alleged to have been defamed. Thus, he moved the Court of Magistrate with a defamation complaint against the Journalists of 'Sunday Views' [Divya Srivastava/Owner & Sanjay Srivastava/Editor].

A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania noted that the Magistrate Court had failed to consider all aspects of the case and the settled law before summoning the accused. The Court thus directed the Magistrate to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the lawyer's complaint afresh after re-examining the complaint in light of the legal principles.

The complaint was filed by Advocate Dr. Mohd. Kamran, who alleged that his reputation was tarnished by a news article published on 6 November 2022 in 'Sunday Views'. The article carried the headline: “Mohammad Kamran 'Patrakar Nahi, Blackmailer Hai': Sansad Brij Bhushan Singh”.

In his complaint, Dr. Kamran had contended that the publication, which was based on two letters dated 25 September 2022 written by Ex-BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, was defamatory and had been widely circulated on digital and social media. He asserted that the article had no substantiated basis and was intended to malign him.

Kamran's complaint alleged that Singh and the Journalists had defamed him. It stated that Kamran had various serious criminal cases registered against him and yet was recognised as an independent journalist by the Uttar Pradesh government.

On 10 April 2023, the magistrate summoned the two journalists to face trial under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC, holding that the article contained words prima facie defamatory to the complainant.

Challenging this order, the applicants argued before the High Court that the Magistrate Court had not applied its mind to the case set up in the complaint and the statement(s) recorded in terms of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC before summoning an accused in exercise of power under Section 204 CrPC.

It was submitted that the court is required to consider the relevant provisions, including Section 500 and the exceptions provided therein, when summoning an accused for committing an offence under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC, which was not considered in the present case.

Importantly, it was also pointed out that the news item was based on letters authored by a sitting Member of Parliament, and against him, the complainant had filed a defamation complaint. However, the HC quashed the same in March 2024, and the HC's order was upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2024.

Against this backdrop, the applicants submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have passed a non-speaking order summoning them without examining the legal framework under Sections 499 and 500 IPC

Accepting this contention, the single judge noted:

"…this Court finds that interference is required in the matter as to the view of this Court the Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 has not considered all the aspects of the case including the law on the issue".

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application by setting aside the summoning order. The Court also remanded the case to the Magistrate to reconsider the complaint and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.