Court Rules Reporter and College Principal Not Liable for Defamation as News Item Was Based on Official Statement Without Malice
In a significant verdict delivered on August 29, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused respondents in a defamation case related to a news publication about irregularities in college admissions. The case, Bimlendu Narayan Ball v. State of Jharkhand, arose from a complaint filed by the Head Clerk of A.S. College, Deoghar, who alleged that a news item published in the newspaper Prabhat Khabar defamed him by reporting his suspension and an FIR lodged against him for alleged admission irregularities.
The complainant, who served the college for 36 years without blemish, argued that the publication damaged his reputation and caused mental distress. However, the respondents - including the then Principal of A.S. College and the newspaper's reporter - contended that the news report was based on statements made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Vipul Shukla, who had informed that forged certificates were used for admissions and the complainant was implicated in the irregularities.
The trial court initially convicted the accused under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation and sentenced them to one year's simple imprisonment. However, on appeal, the Sessions Judge, Deoghar, set aside the conviction. The complainant challenged this acquittal before the Jharkhand High Court.
The High Court, after hearing both sides, affirmed the appellate court's decision. The Court observed that the news item was a fair report of the SDPO's statement regarding forged certificates used during admissions. The Principal's statement explaining the procedural responsibility of the Head Clerk for certificate verification was not defamatory but an explanation of accountability. Moreover, the Court noted that the complainant did not pursue defamation proceedings against the SDPO himself, which undermined the claim of malice or falsehood in the publication.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the reporter merely published the official statement and did not act with any intent to defame. The Court held that mere reporting of official statements without malice does not attract liability for defamation. Additionally, the delay in filing the complaint and the non-inclusion of the newspaper as a party also weighed against the complainant's case.
The judgment reinforces the principle that truthful, fair, and non-malicious reporting of statements by public authorities cannot be construed as defamation. It protects the freedom of the press while balancing the right to reputation.
This verdict provides clarity on the scope of defamation law under Section 500 IPC and affirms the importance of absence of malice in holding journalists or public officials liable for published statements.
Bottom Line:
Defamation - Publication of a news item by a reporter based on a statement made by a public authority (SDPO) does not constitute defamation if there is no malice or intent to defame, and no liability can be fastened upon the reporter for merely reporting the statement.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 500, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313
Bimlendu Narayan Ball v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975235
