Calling A Person 'Gunda', Alleging 'Gunda Raj' Without Justification Amounts To Defamation: HP High Court Convicts Chief Editor Of Newspaper

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” without any justification or basis amounts to defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre People without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person”.

Background facts:

The complainant, Gopal Chand, filed a complaint against the Pradhan, Ramesh Kumar, of Gram Panchayat Sirmour District, Himachal Pradesh and Vijay Gupta, the Chief Editor of Him Ujala Newspaper, under Section 500 of the IPC, for defaming him through a newspaper publication.

The complainant submitted that the Pradhan did not have cordial relations with him, as the Pradhan was asked to deposit the embezzled amount by the Government after the villagers complained against him. The Pradhan thought that the complaint against him was made by the complainant, Gopal Chand, so he threatened the complainant with falsely implicating him.

As alleged by the complainant, a false news article was published against him in Him Ujala Newspaper, making derogatory allegations like calling him Natak Baj and Gunda. The news was published by Vijay Gupta, the Chief Editor of Him Ujala, against the information provided to him by the Pradhan.

Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint against the Pradhan and the chief editor for the commission of the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Preliminary evidence was recorded by the Trial Court, and both accused were summoned. During the Trial, the Pradhan denied signing any press note or affidavit that could have been used for publishing the defamatory news. Only a photocopy was filed; the original press note was neither produced nor was there any explanation for its absence. There was no application filed to admit the photocopy as secondary evidence.

The Chief Editor, in his defence, contended that he published the news article based on the press note handed over to him by the Pradhan, and he did not add anything from his end.

Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the press note was issued by the Pradhan and the Chief Editor could not be held liable because the motive to defame or lower the image of the complainant in the eyes of the public was not proved. Thus, both the Pradhan and the Chief Editor of the newspaper were acquitted.

Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the High Court.

Findings:

The High Court observed that a bare perusal of the news article specifically named the complainant and his brothers as facing cases under the Dowry Act and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It described them as a “shallow drama troupe” who disturbed public peace, spread Gundaraj, and whose condition was like an injured snake.

In Gopinathan v. Ramakrishnan, 2001, the Kerala High Court held that “calling a person a gunda is per se defamatory.” Also in Sadasiba Panda v. Bansidhar Sahu, 1961, the Orissa High Court held that “calling a person goonda is defamatory. The Court remarked that it was duly proved that the news item was defamatory of the complainant”.

Therefore, the High Court remarked that the plea of the Chief Editor stating that he had just published the news as per the press note given by the pradhan is not sufficient to absolve him.

The Chief Editor stated during cross-examination that the Pradhan visited his office and gave him a press note, and the Chief Editor published it as it is without adding anything.

The High Court rejected the contention which stated that the Chief Editor couldn't be held liable for the publication of the news item in the newspaper. The court remarked that it was clear from the statement of the chief editor that he did not dispute the news item; hence, recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Press and Registration Act to determine the publisher.

The presumption contained in the Press and Registration Act will apply in the absence of evidence. It has been observed in Prosser's Handbook of the Law of Torts that the presumptions can be applied in the absence of evidence, but in this case, the Chief Editor accepted that he had published it.

The High Court noted that the Trial Court wrongly believed that the Chief Editor acted in good faith just because he published the press note without changing it. However, the law requires a publisher to check whether what they print is true or not if they want to claim good faith.

In this case, the Chief Editor made no effort to verify the allegations. Calling a person a member of a group of 'Shallow Theatre People', breaching peace and spreading 'Gundaraj' does not protect any public interest. There was no evidence on record that the complainant is a member of the theatre group, breached public peace, or had spread Gundaraj.

The Court held that publishing these allegations without basis could not be considered an act done in good faith or in the public interest.

The High Court remarked that when an imputation concerning the reputation of a person is made without any justification, it can lead to an inference that the publication was with the intent to harm the reputation of the person.

Thus, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the Chief Editor, and he was convicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation. However, since the press note was never proved, the Court upheld the acquittal of the Pradhan.

Case Name: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another

Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 139 of 2011

Date of Decision: 03.07.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.2: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order