Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Ex-JNU Professor's Defamation Case Against 'The Wire'

The Supreme Court (on February 20) resumed its hearing in the defamation case filed by Ex-JNU Professor Amita Singh against 'The Wire.' The case was listed before Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti. Ex-JNU Professor Singh has filed a criminal defamation case over a report published in 'The Wire' that she prepared a dossier allegedly depicting JNU as a “Den of Organised Sex Racket”. In 2023, the Delhi High Court quashed the summons issued against the Editor and Deputy Editor of 'The Wire' in Singh's defamation case. Challenging the High Court's order, she approached the Supreme Court. While issuing notice on the petition, the Court had earlier asked the JNU to ascertain if such a dossier was submitted. Pursuant to this, the Court was informed by theUniversity that it has not received any dossier, allegedly prepared by Professor Singh describing the University as a "den of organised sex racket". During today's hearing, the petitioner's counsel made several allegations against the respondent. Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the respondent news organization, also submitted that there was a solitary reference to the petitioner in the questioned article. She also averred that, at the time of article publishing, the respondents, JNU professors, and even the petitioner understood that such a dossier was submitted. However, when the petitioner wrote to the respondent, a rejoinder was published stating that she had nothing to do with the dossier. Ultimately, the Bench adjourned the matter while clarifying that it was only concerned with the aspect of defamation in this matter. Court Room Exchange At the commencement of the proceedings, the Counsel outlined the background, saying that JNU is a famous university in Asia and the professors are undertaking a number of researches. The government or semi-government organizations finance these researches., the Counsel said. “Unfortunately, this (university) has come in grip of the politics.,” the Counsel added. Moving forward, the Counsel submitted that professors who wanted to focus on academics were quite perturbed; thus, a press conference was organized to appeal that this politics shall not be done on the University's campus. “Somewhere, around 14th March, 2016, there was a press conference organised by certain professors, petitioner was also there, and we have expressed only on this particular fact that academic atmosphere must be maintained and politics should not be everyday affair.” The counsel alleged that certain groups did not take this well. Consequently, on April 16th, a news article was published in 'The Wire' magazine. In that, they referred to a dozier which was a bit controversial, the counsel continued. “In the news they have stated that this dossier had been prepared by a group of professors led by the petitioner. Now, that dossier is very abhorring. Baseless allegations are made against the girl's hostel.” Further, the counsel argued that since the petitioner's name was there, she is linked to every content stated in the dossier. “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.” At this stage, the Court interjected, saying that it cannot go into the veracity of allegations and is only concerned with the aspect of defamation in this matter. “Whether such publication amounts to defamatory statement is the only issue.,” the Bench said. Following this, the Counsel read the concerned article. Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the news organisation, referring to the relevant document submitted: “The article which was published in 'The Wire' is this…the solitary reference to the petitioner is at page 31 saying the group led. At that point of time it was our understanding, the professors of JNU and it was the petitioner's own understanding that such a dossier was in fact prepared. She wrote to us, we published her rejoinder that she did not have anything to do with the dossier.” Subsequently, Justice Bhatti told the petitioner's counsel: “We were only verifying about the presence of your client's name in the so-called article. We did not want to go with your narrative in the written arguments. Therefore, we wanted to look at the very basis which according to you constitutes defamation to your reputation.” Saying this, the Court adjourned the matter. Pertinently, at the end of the hearing, the petitioner appeared in person before the Court. She pleaded that the Court may also give her some time to be heard. “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..” “We will hear you, no problem.,” the Bench replied. Factual Background The complaint was filed by Singh in 2016...

Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Ex-JNU Professor's Defamation Case Against 'The Wire'

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags