Delhi HC Dismisses Plea To Quash Defamation Summons | Proceedings Flow From 2016 Complaint Not A Fresh Case | Appeal Revision Is A Continuation Of Original Proceedings
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging the issuance of summons in a defamation case. The petitions, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, sought quashing of the summoning order dated January 13, 2025. The Court held that since the criminal complaint in question had been filed in 2016 and the earlier summoning order dated January 7, 2017 was quashed only on technical grounds, the subsequent order issued after remand by the Supreme Court was merely a continuation of the original proceedings. The Court unequivocally stated that the new criminal procedural law, BNSS, did not apply retroactively to proceedings that had already commenced under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court further concluded that as per Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, the applicable procedure remained governed by the Cr.P.C., and therefore, "no Notice was required to be served on the Petitioners before any Order of Summoning was made." Consequently, the petitions seeking to quash the summoning order were found to be devoid of merit and were dismissed accordingly.
The case originated from a criminal complaint filed by Dr. Amita Singh, a professor and Chairperson of the Centre for Study of Law and Governance (CSLG) at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The complaint was lodged on May 12, 2016, under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The core allegation pertained to the publication of an article on April 26, 2016, on a digital news platform, "The Wire," which allegedly contained defamatory imputations concerning Dr. Amita Singh. The article was authored by one of the petitioners, Mr. Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprashasta.
According to the complaint, the article purportedly imputed that the complainant had prepared a dossier alleging that Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) was a "Den of Organised Sex Racket" and made other similar derogatory claims. The complaint further stated that these statements had caused her to become the target of a hate campaign, thereby tarnishing her reputation as an academic and resulting in professional setbacks.
During the pre-summoning stage, the complainant examined herself as CW1 and reiterated the claims made in the original complaint. In addition, CW2 Professor Bupinder Zutshi testified that many faculty members and students of JNU demanded Dr. Amita Singh’s resignation from CSLG following the dissemination of the said dossier. CW3 Dr. Rahila Sikandar and CW4 Dr. Nazia Khan also testified to similar effects. CW5, Mr. Manu Singh, a former student of JNU, stated that his respect for Dr. Amita Singh diminished after reading the article in question.
The complainant chose not to pursue the case against some of the originally named respondents, namely Aftab Alam, Naveen Gaur, Lenin Kumar, and Umar Khalid. These individuals were said to have merely added comments to the article and were accordingly dropped from the complaint.
On January 7, 2017, based on the evidence presented by the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) issued a summoning order against The Wire and Mr. Mahaprashasta. This summoning order was subsequently challenged in Crl.M.C. 2792/2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and was quashed on March 29, 2023, due to the absence of a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and failure to produce the alleged defamatory article.
Thereafter, the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1471/2024 before the Supreme Court of India, which was allowed on July 24, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have adjudicated the matter on merits without the alleged article on record and remanded the matter to the trial court.
Following the remand, the learned JMFC reassessed the matter and issued a fresh summoning order dated January 13, 2025. The order referred to material Ex.CW1/2 (colly) to Ex.CW-1/8 and found sufficient grounds to summon The Wire, Mr. Mahaprashasta, Ms. Kavita Krishnan, and Mr. Sanjeev Chandan for the offence under Section 500 IPC.
The present petitions were filed challenging this summoning order. The petitioners contended that the order was passed in violation of Section 223 of the BNSS, which allegedly required that accused persons be given notice before issuance of a summoning order. It was argued that the petitioners had been denied their right to be heard.
The petitioners also submitted that the article was a faithful reportage of a press conference held on March 14, 2016, during which a dossier was released by a panel including the complainant herself. They argued that the trial court erred in holding the petitioners liable for comments made by others, and further alleged that the order wrongly attributed imputations to the article which were not present.
The petitioners further contended that the complainant had suppressed relevant communications between herself and the petitioners, including a response published by The Wire asserting that the information had been duly verified prior to publication.
They maintained that the prosecution amounted to a curtailment of press freedom, and that the allegations were vague and insufficient to constitute defamation. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, which stated that complaints for defamation must be examined carefully before summoning an accused.
In opposition, counsel for the complainant argued that BNSS was not applicable to the proceedings. It was submitted that since the complaint was initially filed in 2016, and the first summoning order was passed in 2017, the case was governed by the Cr.P.C., as per Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS. The subsequent developments were part of a continuous proceeding and did not trigger retrospective application of the BNSS.
The Court stated, "The Complaint, the subject matter of the present Petition, was admittedly filed on 12.05.2016 for the offences under Section 499/500/501/502 IPC." It further recorded, "The first Order of Summoning was made on 07.01.2017 which was challenged before this Court and the Summoning Order was quashed on 29.03.2023 as the alleged defamatory article was not supported with a Certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act."
The Court observed, "The matter then went to the Apex Court which remitted the matter to the Ld. Trial Court for afresh consideration on 24.07.2024 which ultimately resulted in the Impugned Order of Summoning dated 13.01.2025."
Regarding the application of BNSS, the Court noted, "It was pending before the Apex Court on 01.07.2024 on which date the BNSS was made applicable. The legislature being cognizant of the difficulties that may arise... provided Section 531 which dealt with Repeal and Savings."
The Court referred to Section 531(2)(a) BNSS and recorded, "This provision ensured that justice was not delayed or denied due to procedural changes. The right of the accused in the FIR and/or under trials and/or in the trials or appeals and the legal expectations formed under the law, had been duly protected."
Citing precedents, the Court stated, "This clause was considered by the High Court of Rajasthan in Krishan Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC Online Raj. 2042," and observed, "There is, therefore, no retrospective application of the new Code i.e. BNSS to the matters that were already pending."
The Court also noted the decision in Partha Sarthi Sarkar vs. Nagpur District Court 2025 SCC OnLine Bombay 343, and recorded, "It is the Cr.P.C. that would be applicable to any Appeal, Application, Trial, Inquiry or Investigation pending immediately before the day on which BNSS came into force."
Responding to the petitioners' argument that no complaint was pending as on July 1, 2024, the Court stated, "There cannot be any more specious argument, considering that it is well settled law... that the Appeal, Revision is a continuation of the original proceedings."
It concluded, "The Complaint dated 12.05.2016 which was directed to be re-heard by the Apex Court on 24.07.2024, would not be deemed to be a fresh Complaint... The Summoning Order dated 13.01.2025 emanates from the Complaint that got filed in the year 2016."
The Court held that "the provisions of Cr.P.C. would be applicable in terms of Section 531(2)(a) BNSS." Accordingly, it stated that "as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. no Notice was required to be served on the Petitioners before any Order of Summoning was made."
Based on the above reasoning, the Court found no merit in the petitions and ordered, "There are no merit in the present Petitions which are hereby dismissed."
It further recorded, "The pending Application(s) if any, are disposed of accordingly." The Court made it explicit that its decision was confined to the procedural aspect, and clarified, "It is hereby clarified that there is no expression on the merits of the case for which the parties are at liberty to pursue a legal remedy, if so desired."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarim Naved, Mr. Saad Uzzaman, Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Ms. Natasha Maheshwari, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Syed Hamza G., Mr. Udit Chauhan, Mr. Varun Vats, Advocates
Case Title: Foundation for Independent Journalism & Anr. v. Dr. Amita Singh
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:3767
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3204/2025 and CRL.M.C. 3224/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
[Read/Download order]
