The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that falsely branding a person as having links to terrorists amounts to criminal defamation, observing that such a portrayal “lowers the image” of the person in the eyes of those who know him.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the editor and owner of Dainik Jagran, who had sought to quash criminal defamation proceedings against a news report that allegedly portrayed a private individual as an overground worker for militants.
The court refused to quash the proceedings against the newspaper’s editor, Abhimanyu Sharma, but gave relief to its owner, Sanjay Gupta, holding that there was nothing on record to show he was involved in selecting the offending article for publication.
The case arose from a complaint filed by one Prem Kumar, who alleged that a report published in Dainik Jagran falsely portrayed him as an associate of militants who had helped them carry out attacks on security forces, including the Nagrota attack.
Kumar alleged that the report was fabricated, had no official backing and had seriously damaged his reputation in society and among his relatives. He said that despite being served a legal notice seeking an apology, the publishers failed to issue any clarification, forcing him to approach the trial court. A trial magistrate took cognisance of the complaint, following which the newspaper’s owner and editor moved the High Court to get the proceedings quashed.
The newspaper’s counsel argued that the report was already in the public domain, was based on information received from the investigating agency probing militant attacks and was published in the exercise of freedom of speech and expression. It was also argued that the owner was only responsible for the general policy of the publication and could not be held liable for the selection of individual news items.
The High Court was not persuaded, at least not when it came to the editor. It noted that a bare reading of the news item showed its contents were “per se defamatory,” and held that branding a person as an overground worker of terrorists or attributing links with militants to him inherently damages his reputation.
The court further held that the editor could not escape liability by pleading lack of intent. “Having regard to the nature of the news item, it can prima facie be stated that they had the knowledge that the said news item would harm the reputation of the complainant,” Justice Dhar observed.
The court acknowledged that newspapers enjoy the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, but stressed that the right is not absolute. “A newspaper has the right to dissemination of information obtained from antagonistic sources, but it cannot disseminate false imputations against a person,” it said, noting that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, including the law of defamation.
Invoking the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the court held that a statutory presumption of responsibility arises against an editor for defamatory content published in a newspaper. No such presumption, however, exists against an owner unless there are specific allegations of his direct involvement in the publication of the offending item. Finding no such allegations against Gupta, the court quashed the proceedings against him.
The petition was partly allowed, with the High Court directing the trial court to proceed with the criminal defamation case against the editor alone.
This post was last modified on March 16, 2026 3:30 pm