New Delhi: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person a “Gunda” and alleging he was breaching peace and “spreading Gundaraj” is defamatory if there is no basis to such accusations. It convicted a newspaper editor for publishing an article in 2004 based on an unverified press note linking a man to lawlessness and dowry cases.
Overturning the acquittal of Him Ujala chief editor Vijay Gupta by the Paonta Sahib judicial magistrate in Sirmour district, the high court also said making such allegations against a person without any justification can lead to an inference that the publication was made with the intent to harm the person’s reputation.
The court convicted Gupta for defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and directed he be produced 24 July for the announcement of the quantum of sentence.
Gupta was acquitted by the trial court which said he acted bona fide in good faith, hence, he could not be held liable under section 500 of the IPC. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint.
The HC has overturned this acquittal while hearing the complainant’s appeal.
“Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj… without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person. When an imputation concerning the reputation of a person is made without any justification, it can lead to an inference that the publication was (made) with the intent to harm the reputation of the person,” Justice Rakesh Kainthla of the HP High Court at Shimla said in the July 3 order.
The court also observed there is no evidence on record that the complainant is a member of a drama group, as alleged in the report, and breached the public peace or spread lawlessness.
“Calling a person a member of a group of ‘Shallow Theatre People’, breaching peace and spreading ‘Gundaraj’ does not protect any public interest,” Justice Kainthla said. “The publication of these facts would have been relevant if the complainant had such a character, and it was necessary to warn the people about him; however, in the absence of any such evidence, the publication cannot be said to be in good faith or for protecting the public interest,” Justice Kainthla said.
Also Read: ‘Unconstitutional’ — Himachal High Court strikes down Sukhu govt’s water cess on power generation
The case
Gopal Chand, a resident of Khoronwala village in Sirmaur district who runs a business, filed a complaint in the trial court against Gorkhuwala gram panchayat pradhan Ramesh Kumar and Him Ujala newspaper chief editor Vijay Gupta, accusing them of defaming him through false allegations made against him in an article published 13 June 2004.
Chand alleged Kumar harboured ill feelings towards him as he believed he was behind complaints of corruption against the pradhan that led the government to direct him to return funds allegedly embezzled.
According to Gopal Chand, the defamatory article was later published in the newspaper based on information provided by the pradhan, branding him as “Natakbaj” and “Gunda”.
After this, Gopal Chand had moved the trial court.
During the trial, however, the pradhan denied ever issuing any such press note or affidavit. Moreover, only a photocopy of the alleged press note was submitted in the court—neither the original document was produced, nor was there any justification for its absence. Additionally, no legal application was made to accept the photocopy as secondary evidence.
In his defense, the editor claimed that he merely published the information given to him by the pradhan and did not add any content of his own. The trial court found no solid evidence proving that the press note originated from the pradhan.
Furthermore, there was insufficient proof that the article was published with the intention of damaging Gopal Chand’s reputation. As a result, both the pradhan and the chief editor were acquitted of the defamation charges.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Gopal Chand appealed the decision before the high court.
While deciding the case, the high court referred to other judgements including the Kerala HC’s order in the Gopinathan v. Ramakrishnan (2001) case in which it said that calling someone a “gunda” is inherently defamatory. In the Sadasiba Panda v. Bansidhar Sahu (1961), the Orissa High Court also said calling a person “goonda” amounts to defamation.
Based on these precedents and perusal of the evidence, the high court concluded the news article was clearly defamatory towards the complainant. It rejected the editor’s defense that he simply published the press note handed to him by the pradhan without alteration.
The village pradhan acquitted
The high court closely examined the news article in question and found that it directly named Gopal Chand and his brothers while alleging they were involved in dowry-related criminal cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Comparing them to “injured snakes”, the article went further on, labeling them as a “shallow drama troupe” who disturbed public order and spread “Gundaraj” (lawlessness).
The court emphasised that merely reproducing someone else’s statements does not exempt a publisher from liability. Under defamation law, the publisher has a duty to verify the truthfulness of what they print if they wish to claim they acted in “good faith.”
In this case, the editor made no effort to confirm the allegations against Chand, nor was there any evidence to support claims that the complainant disturbed public peace or was part of any drama group, the court observed.
Furthermore, the court clarified that protection under the Press and Registration Act wasn’t applicable here because the chief editor had already admitted to publishing the article. Hence, the legal presumption that applies in the absence of evidence was not necessary.
The high court criticised the trial court for assuming that the chief editor acted in good faith simply because he didn’t modify the press note. The court reiterated that publication of defamatory content without verification or public interest justification cannot be considered lawful or well-intentioned.
Since the statements had no factual basis and directly harmed the complainant’s reputation, the court inferred that the publication was done with the intent to defame Chand.
As a result, the high court overturned the trial court’s acquittal of the chief editor and convicted him under Section 500 of the IPC for defamation. Pradhan’s acquittal was upheld as the press note was never legally proven to have been issued by him.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)