J&K High Court Quashes Defamation Complaint Against Newspaper's Managing Director, Holds Only Editor Bears Statutory Liability Under Press Act

Justice Sanjay Dhar at Srinagar found no statutory presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 attaches to a Managing Director absent specific allegations of editorial control.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed a criminal defamation complaint and all proceedings flowing from it against Vineet Jain, the Managing Director of the company that owns the newspaper “Sunday Times.” Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, held that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 raises a statutory presumption of liability only against the declared Editor of a newspaper — not against a Managing Director — unless the complaint contains specific allegations that the individual controlled or selected the offending content. The court found no such allegations in the complaint filed by respondent Aman Zargar, and additionally held that the news item in question was not defamatory in the first place.

The Complaint and Its Journey to the High Court

The dispute arose from a news item published on 7 April 2019 in several newspapers, including the “Sunday Times.” The article reported that an Army soldier had been shot dead in Sopore, Kashmir on 6 April 2019. However, the newspaper published the photograph of the complainant, Aman Zargar, alongside the story. Zargar, who is an Engineer and a social activist, alleged that his photograph being used in place of that of the deceased Army man exposed him to serious threats. He averred that various groups mistook him for an Army man or as someone working for the Army, leading to social boycott at his workplace and threats to his life. He filed a complaint alleging offences under Section 500 RPC — the defamation provision — before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Srinagar.

The trial Magistrate issued process against the petitioner vide order dated 23 April 2019. Vineet Jain challenged that order by way of a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on 6 March 2023, holding that the process-issuance order was interlocutory in nature and therefore not revisable. Jain then approached the High Court by filing CRM(M) No. 132/2023.

The Petitioner's Case: Role of the Editor Under the Press Act

Before the High Court, Jain's counsel pressed a single central argument: that his client, as Managing Director, had no role in selecting or controlling the content published in the newspaper, and that the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 places responsibility for newspaper content exclusively on the Editor.

The petitioner relied on the definitional and evidentiary scheme of the Act. Section 1(1) of the Act defines “Editor” as a person who controls the selection of matter that is published in a newspaper. Section 5(1) requires every newspaper to carry the names of its owner and editor clearly printed on each copy. Section 7 provides that in any legal proceeding, production of a copy of the newspaper bearing the editor's name is sufficient evidence that the named editor was the editor of every portion of that issue — thereby establishing a statutory presumption of responsibility against that person.

On the facts, Jain produced the relevant copy of the declaration made by the newspaper, which showed that one Sh. Neelam Raaj had been declared as the Editor responsible for selection of news under the Act. Counsel argued that in the absence of any specific allegation that Jain himself selected or directed the publication of the offending news item, the complaint against him could not be sustained.

A further argument was made on the merits of the defamation allegation itself: that the news item named the killed soldier, and even if the photograph published was mistakenly that of the complainant, being identified as an Army man could not, by any reasoning, harm a person's reputation.

How Justice Sanjay Dhar Reasoned Through the Act

Justice Dhar worked through Sections 1(1), 5, and 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 to map who bears statutory accountability for published content. He found the scheme clear: every newspaper must carry the names of its owner and editor; and against the person whose name appears as editor, a rebuttable presumption arises that he controlled the selection of the content of that issue.

The court then turned to the Supreme Court's decision in K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 670, which had considered the same provisions. The Supreme Court had held in that case that the presumption under Section 7 runs against the person whose name is printed as Editor, but that the presumption is rebuttable — the named editor can still show he had no real control over the content. Crucially for the present case, the Supreme Court had also held that titles such as Chief Editor, Managing Editor, or Resident Editor attract no statutory immunity, but equally attract no statutory presumption: such individuals can be prosecuted only if specific allegations are made against them establishing their knowledge and responsibility for the offending publication.

Applying this to the facts, Justice Dhar drew a clear line. The Act of 1867 recognises only the Editor for the purpose of raising a presumption in civil or criminal proceedings. A Managing Director is not a category the Act addresses for this purpose. Therefore, without a specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was responsible for selecting or publishing the offending content, he could not be proceeded against. Justice Dhar found the impugned complaint entirely silent on this score — it contained no allegation connecting Jain to any editorial decision.

Since the declaration filed by the newspaper named Sh. Neelam Raaj as the Editor, the presumption under Section 7 of the Act arose against that person, not against Jain. In the absence of statutory presumption and in the absence of specific allegations, the court held that the prosecution against the petitioner could not be sustained.

Finding on the Nature of the News Item

Justice Dhar went further and examined whether the published content was defamatory at all. His analysis was brief but direct. The news item reported the death of an Army soldier and mistakenly carried the complainant's photograph. The court held that being identified, even incorrectly, as a member of the Indian Armed Forces cannot by any reasoning be said to harm a person's reputation. In fact, the court observed, being associated with the Indian Armed Forces is a privilege, and such a mistaken identification would enhance rather than harm a person's standing. The trial Magistrate had not applied his mind to this question and had mechanically proceeded to hold a prima facie case of defamation on the bare fact that the complainant's photograph had been used in place of the deceased soldier's.

Co-Accused Already Acquitted

An additional ground was pressed during arguments. Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a copy of an order dated 15 December 2025 passed by the trial court, whereby the complaint against the co-accused in the same matter had been dismissed and they had been acquitted. Justice Dhar held that this furnished an independent ground to quash the complaint against Jain: when co-accused persons have been acquitted in respect of the same offence arising from the same allegations, the complaint against the petitioner could not be allowed to proceed.

Order

Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the petition. The impugned complaint and all proceedings emanating from it against Vineet Jain were quashed. The order was passed at Srinagar on 13 July 2026 and has been marked as both speaking and reportable.