Delhi High Court Rejects Plea By 'The Wire' Against Summoning Order Passed In Ex-JNU Professor's Defamation Complaint

The Delhi High Court has rejected the pleas moved by Foundation of Independent Journalism, which runs the media platform 'The Wire', and its editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha challenging an order summoning them on a criminal defamation case filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh. 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the petitions challenging the trial court order passed on January 13 summoning them in the defamation case filed by Singh.

It was the petitioners' case that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions contained under Section 223 of BNSS before issuing the summons.

Section 223 BNSS states that a Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. First proviso states that "Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard".

It was argued that the accused should have been given a notice and in its absence, they were deprived of their right to be heard before issuance of the summons.

The court rejected the petitioner's contention that since there was no pending matter against it on July 1, 2024 thus, it is BNSS which would be applicable, giving a right to the Petitioner to be heard before the Summoning Order was passed.

Justice Krishna said, "There cannot be any more specious argument, considering that it is well settled law and does not need reiteration that the Appeal, Revision is a continuation of the original proceedings. It is not as if the Complaint dated 12.05.2016 which was directed to be re-heard by the Apex Court on 24.07.2024, would be deemed to be a fresh Complaint and all the proceeding held in 2016 have become non-existent. The only direction by the Apex Court was to hold further enquiry as was done by the Ld. JMFC, who took further documents on record and thereafter, made a reassessment before summoning the Petitioners". 

The Court noted that the Summoning Order emanated from the complaint filed in 2016 and that thus, the provisions of Cr.P.C. would be applicable in terms of Section 531(2)(a) BNSS.

“Therefore, 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. There are no merit in the present Petitions which are hereby dismissed. The pending Application(s) if any, are disposed of accordingly,” the Court said.

It clarified that there was no expression on the merits of the case for which the parties were at liberty to pursue a legal remedy, if so desired.

For context, on July 24, 2024 the Supreme Court, while setting aside the Delhi High Court's 2023 order (which had quashed the summons against The Wire) had, without going into the merits remanded the matter back to the Magistrate to decide it afresh on the issue of issuance of summons. 

The Supreme Court had in its order said, "Though, arguments have been made at length, we are of the view that the High Court has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction. Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., as it then was, merely facilitates a Magistrate who, upon entertaining a private complaint, has to proceed further by issuing summons for which purpose he has to satisfy the existence of sufficient grounds. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order...In such view of the matter, without expressing anything on merits, we set aside the impugned order by remitting the issue of summons to the Learned Magistrate after duly taking note of the publication said to have been made by the respondents. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits. While doing so, the Learned Magistrate shall proceed with the matter afresh, without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment". 

The complaint was filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh in 2016 wherein she has referred to an article written by the Wire's Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha in April 2016 titled “Dossier Call JNU "Den of Organised Sex Racket"; Students, Professors Allege Hate Campaign”. Singh had claimed that the publication imputed that she prepared a dossier allegedly depicting JNU as a “Den of Organised Sex Racket”. 

The complaint alleged that the Editor did not verify the authenticity of the Dossier and used it for monetary benefits of its magazine, defaming Singh's reputation.

The summoning order was passed against the Wire's Editor Siddharth Bhatia and its Editor Ajoy Ashirwad by a Delhi metropolitan court in 2017. Moreover, in the complaint, she also alleged that the accused persons had started a hate campaign against her to malign her reputation. 

Case title : FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM V/s AMITA SINGH and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 574

Click here to read order