Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Abstract

Introductory Muse

Our Apex Court (Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal, JJ) observed in Dinesh B.S. v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SCOR/113600/2023, as under:

• “To show the error in the reasoning of the High Court on laying much credibility on the newspaper reports, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu quoted Mark Twain who said,
  • “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”
• In the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel that an extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large.”

Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of TN, is the Locus Classicus Decision

Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) 3 SCC 319 at 346, is the locus classicus decision on the question of admissibility of a news in a newspaper. It is held as under:

• “We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aligned. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in S. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached u/ S. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.
• It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.” (Quoted in: Quamarul Islam v. S. K. Kanta, AIR 1994  SC 1733; S. A. Khan v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1993 SC 1348; 1993 3 SCC 151)
• Note:
• ^{Sec. 78(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks as to ‘proof of other official documents such as ‘the proceedings of the Legislatures – by the journals of those bodies respectively or by published Acts or abstracts; or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned.}
• ^{S. 81 speaks as to ‘presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents’.}

Presumption of Genuineness Under Sec. 81 Is Not ‘Proof of the Facts Stated Therein’

In Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, (1999) 7 SCC 435, it was held that ‘the newspaper reports are merely hearsay and not proof of facts stated therein’. It is observed as under:

• “…  (T)he presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. The statements of fact in newspapers are merely hearsay (Laxmi Raj Setty v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 (3) SCC 319).”

No Judicial Notice on News in a Newspaper

In Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022-7 Scale 256; 2022-3 SCR 471, it is held as under:

• “It is settled law that courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper.”

Newspaper Report Cannot be Relied on Unless Proved by Evidence from another source

In RK Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 2009 8 SCC 106, it is held as under:

• “SA Khan v. Bhajan Lal, (1993) 3 SCC 151, and in Quamarul Islam vs. S. K. Kanta, (1973) 1 SCC 471 relate to newspaper reports. In these two decisions it was held that newspaper report is hearsay secondary evidence which cannot be relied on unless proved by evidence aliunde.”

In Quamarul Islam v. SK Kanta, AIR 1994 SC 1733, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 5, our Apex Court held as under:

• “48. Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled.” (Quoted in: Borgaram Deuri v. Premodhar Bora, AIR 2004  SC 1386; 2004-2 SCC 227)

Newspaper Reports Becomes Primary Evidence when Reporter is Examined

The Supreme Court decision in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, (1969) 3 SCR 603 considered the question whether George Fernandez, had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park, Bombay as attributed in the report in the Maratha, a Marathi newspaper. Our Apex Court held as under:

• “A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.”

In Oommen Chandy v. State of Kerala, 2016 4 Cri CC 43; 2017 CrLJ 925; 2016 3 ILR(Ker) 326, the Kerala High Court held as under:

• “10. It is trite law that newspaper reports regarding the incident can only be treated as merely ‘hearsay’ in the matter and nothing more. When a reporter has reported some thing, and if it is from his personal knowledge, definitely it can be primary evidence, provided, the said person is examined to prove those statements. If not, it attains only the status of ‘hearsay secondary evidence’.”

CDs of News Clipping Reports Telecasted in a TV Channel –  Hearsay Evidence

Mohet Hojai, Son of Shri Thangmai Hojai v. National Investigation Agency (11 Aug 2023, Gau) held as under:

• “149. In the case of Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2022) 3 SCR 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless proved by the maker of the statement appearing in the Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.
• 150. We feel that the same analogy would apply to a report telecasted in a TV channel. Thus, the CDs of news clipping reports sought to be proved in the testimony of Hiteswar Medhi (PW-27) and Caushiq Kashyap Bezbaruah (PW-70) were inadmissible as the same tantamount to hearsay evidence. That apart, the CDs were in form of secondary evidence and absence of certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ruled out their production in evidence.”

A Newspaper Report is Not a “Legal Evidence”

In Naval Kishor Sharma v. State of U.P. (Samit Gopal, J.), 2022-11 ADJ 127; 2022-6 All LJ 556; 2022 155 All LR 37619, it is held as under:

• “In the case of Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. : (2020) 16 SCC 811, it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under:-
• “6. As noted, the entire basis for making the allegations as contained in the miscellaneous petition is an article relied on by the petitioner said to have been published in the newspaper. There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper. In our view this Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly held that the newspaper item without any further proof is of no evidentiary value. The said principle laid down has thereafter been taken note in several public interest litigations to reject the allegations contained in the petition supported by newspaper report.
• 7. It would be appropriate to notice the decision  in Kushum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180, wherein it is observed thus : (SCC p. 186, para 17)
• “17. … It is also noticed that the petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition.”
• 8. This Court, in Rohit Pandey v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 702, while considering the petition purporting to be in public interest filed by a member of the legal fraternity had come down heavily on the petitioner, since the said petition was based only on two newspaper reports without further verification.”
• 20. From the above judgements it is clear that newspaper report by itself does not constitute an evidence of the contents of it. The reports are only hearsay evidence. They have to be proved either by production of the reporter who heard the said statements and sent them for reporting or by production of report sent by such reporter and production of the Editor of the newspaper or it’s publisher to prove the said report. It has been held by the Apex Court that newspaper reports are at best secondary evidence and not admissible in evidence without proper proof of its content under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is thus clear that newspaper report is not a “legal evidence” which can be examined in support of the complainant.
• 21. It is trite law that there has to be legal evidence in support of the allegations levelled against a person. In the present case the only evidence relied upon is the newspaper reporting and nothing else. For what has been stated above and as per the settled legal position, a newspaper report is not a “legal evidence“.