The Gauhati High Court has delivered a significant clarification on the limits of criminal liability for corporate executives in media-related defamation cases. In quashing proceedings against a Managing Director, the Court reaffirmed that vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code cannot be presumed - it must be grounded in specific, personal allegations of involvement.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smti Dipannita Jaiswal, served as Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., which operated the television channel DY365. A criminal complaint was filed under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 IPC alleging that a news broadcast on DY365 defamed Respondent No. 2. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner despite her not being directly involved in editorial decisions.
Procedural History
- 2013: Complaint Case No. 4285C/2013 registered under IPC Sections 499/500/34
- 31.07.2014: Trial Court took cognizance and issued process against all accused, including the petitioner
- 2015: Petitioner filed Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings
- 04.02.2026: Gauhati High Court delivered judgment quashing proceedings against the petitioner
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings against her under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that no specific allegations tied her to the defamatory broadcast and that vicarious liability does not attach automatically under the IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Managing Director of a media company can be held criminally liable for defamation under Section 500 IPC solely on the basis of her corporate position, absent any specific allegation of personal involvement in the publication of the allegedly defamatory content.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The Indian Penal Code contains no provision for vicarious liability of directors or managing officers for defamation
- The petitioner had no role in editorial selection or broadcast of content - responsibility rested solely with the Editor-in-Chief
- The complaint failed to allege any specific act, omission, or knowledge attributable to the petitioner
- The alleged defamatory material (an electronic record) was not produced before the Trial Court at the time of taking cognizance, violating Section 202 CrPC requirements
- Relied on Criminal Petition No. 556/2012 (Sri Pranoy Bordoloi) and Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat to establish that personal involvement is mandatory
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant contended that:
- The complaint alleged a common intention among all accused, including the petitioner, to broadcast the defamatory content
- The term "accused persons" included the petitioner, and the complaint’s general language was sufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC
- The master spool (electronic record) was in the possession of the company and could be produced later
- The Trial Court had applied its mind after examining witnesses under Section 202 CrPC
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of vicarious liability under the IPC, distinguishing it from statutory offences where such liability is expressly provided (e.g., under the Companies Act or Environmental Laws). It emphasized that Section 499/500 IPC requires proof of personal act or intent.
"The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence."
The Court noted that the complaint contained only a generic allegation that "all accused persons, with prior meeting of mind, broadcasted the defamatory news item." No specific act, direction, approval, or knowledge by the petitioner was alleged. The absence of the electronic record - the very foundation of the defamation claim - further undermined the prima facie case.
The Court relied on Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat to hold that mere corporate position cannot substitute for personal culpability. It also cited Castrol India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reinforcing that specific averments are indispensable. The Trial Court’s mechanical issuance of process without examining whether the petitioner’s role met the threshold for personal liability was held to be a failure of judicial application of mind.
The Court concluded that Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked to impute liability without evidence of common intention - which, again, was not particularized against the petitioner.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that vicarious liability under Section 500 IPC does not exist absent specific allegations of personal involvement. The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed under Section 482 CrPC, while proceedings against other accused persons, including the Editor, were allowed to continue.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vicarious Liability Cannot Be Presumed
- Practitioners must now insist that complaints against corporate officers under IPC specifically allege personal involvement - mere position or title is insufficient
- Courts must apply the Maksud Saiyed test: Would the complaint, if true, establish personal liability?
- Section 34 IPC cannot be used as a catch-all to implicate directors without factual linkage to the act
Documentary Evidence Is Non-Negotiable
- In defamation cases involving electronic records, the complaint must either produce the material or explain its non-production at the cognizance stage
- Failure to produce the defamatory content at the Section 202 CrPC enquiry stage renders the prima facie case defective
- Courts must not issue process based on vague assertions about "available electronic records"
Editorial Responsibility Is Distinct from Corporate Oversight
- Managing Directors, CEOs, or shareholders who do not control editorial content cannot be prosecuted for defamation
- Media companies must clearly delineate roles: Editor = legal responsibility for content; Management = operational oversight
- Legal teams advising media houses should draft internal policies that formalize this separation to mitigate exposure
