Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against multiple journalists and media professionals in connection with news articles published about the authenticity of artworks auctioned by a private auction house. The court ruled that the magistrate had not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before issuing summons to the accused, who resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court.

The case originated from a private complaint filed on August 22, 2014, by M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and several of its editorial staff, including editors and journalists. The complaint alleged that multiple news articles published in The Times of India, Bangalore Mirror, Mumbai Mirror, The Economic Times, and other publications contained defamatory statements regarding the authenticity of artworks auctioned by the complainant.

The complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deal with defamation. The complainant stated that the articles, published between June 27, 2014, and July 20, 2014, falsely suggested that some of the artworks in its auction were counterfeits, causing reputational harm. The articles reportedly cited expert opinions questioning the authenticity of certain paintings.

Upon receiving the complaint, the trial court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and, on July 29, 2016, took cognizance of the case, registering it as PCR No. 13146 of 2014 and later as CC No. 18491 of 2016. The magistrate issued summons to the accused, including senior editors and journalists. The accused then moved the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 3829 of 2017, seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed their petition on June 18, 2024, except for the relief granted to Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., which was removed from the case.

The accused later approached the Supreme Court through multiple special leave petitions, challenging the High Court’s decision and questioning the maintainability of the complaint.

The Supreme Court recorded that the magistrate had not complied with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires an inquiry before summoning an accused residing outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court stated:

"Section 202 Cr.P.C. mandates an inquiry before proceeding against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and this provision aims to prevent the harassment of persons residing at far-off places through false complaints."

The accused journalists and editors were based in Mumbai and Kolkata, while the case was filed in Bengaluru. The court recorded that the magistrate had not conducted the required inquiry before issuing summons. The court stated: "The failure of complying with the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process against the appellant, who resides in Mumbai i.e., outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bengaluru court, vitiates the criminal proceedings initiated against him."

The Supreme Court also recorded that the complaint did not contain specific allegations establishing defamation under Section 499 IPC. The court stated that the complaint was based on the complainant’s perception of reputational harm rather than any third-party evidence demonstrating actual damage.

Regarding the role of the accused journalists, the court recorded that their news reports cited expert opinions and did not make direct allegations of forgery against the complainant. It stated: "Mere factual reference to another allegedly defamatory article or recording of a third-party view by a journalist cannot be held as defamatory."

The Supreme Court also recorded that the High Court’s order had only referred to one of the articles in question without considering all the publications cited in the complaint.

The Supreme Court set aside the criminal proceedings against the accused. The court recorded that the complaint was not maintainable as the magistrate had not conducted the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing summons to the accused, who resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The Supreme Court also recorded that the allegations against the accused lacked specific details necessary to establish criminal defamation.

The court set aside the order of the Karnataka High Court dated June 18, 2024, which had upheld the summoning of the accused. The summoning orders issued by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 18491 of 2016 were also set aside. The court recorded that the complaint did not contain sufficient evidence to establish reputational harm in the estimation of others. The court also recorded that a similar defamation complaint filed by the same complainant had been quashed by the Supreme Court in M/s. DAG Pvt. Ltd. v. Bid & Hammer Auctioneers (P) Ltd., decided on July 20, 2022.

The Supreme Court also recorded that while freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is a fundamental right, media professionals must ensure accuracy and fairness in reporting to avoid reputational harm. The court stated: "The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant, and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions with remarkable speed."

At the same time, the court recorded that criminal defamation laws should not be used to suppress journalistic expression. The court stated that defamatory imputations must be based on objective evidence rather than a complainant’s subjective perception of harm.

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings and summoning orders, holding that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for defamation under Section 499 IPC and that procedural irregularities had vitiated the case.

Case Title: Jaideep Bose v. M/s. Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited and connected matters
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 814, 815, 816, and 817 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10212, 13443, 15653, and 16153 of 2024)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]