Maheshwer Peri prevailed through years of defending defamation proceedings in several jurisdictions, winning favorable outcomes in some cases and seeking to move surviving cases to the Supreme Court. In January 2016, IIPM’s counsel told the Court that the proceedings covered by Peri’s transfer petitions would be withdrawn. The Court then disposed of the petitions because they no longer survived. That was a significant practical victory for Peri, but not a Supreme Court ruling on every allegation.
Why Peri challenged IIPM’s claims
The dispute grew out of reporting on IIPM’s public claims, including claims about student placements. In Scroll’s 2016 account, Peri said he began questioning the school’s placement claims after a parent approached him and that he investigated further. This account of how the reporting began is attributed to Peri; it should not be confused with a finding made in his cases.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Paralegal Dictionary Definition Legal Assistant Case for iPhone 17 | $19.99 | Buy on Amazon |
Scroll reported that Outlook ranked IIPM fourth for industry interface in its 2003 business-school survey, then stopped including it in rankings in 2005 because IIPM would not provide supporting placement details. Peri published critical articles in Outlook in 2008. After leaving the magazine to establish Careers360, he published three articles about IIPM there in 2009. Scroll’s retrospective account presents this chronology and Peri’s explanation of it.
How the cases unfolded
Delhi: a publication injunction was narrowed
In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation complaint against Peri and Outlook over earlier articles and obtained an interim injunction from a Delhi magistrate against defamatory articles. In May 2009, the Delhi High Court modified the order: publication could continue if IIPM’s response, if received within two days, appeared with the same prominence in a subsequent issue and without modification. Human Rights Watch describes the order and its modification in its 2016 report on criminalization of peaceful expression in India.
#1 Best Overall
- For paralegals during legal case preparation.
- Two-part protective case made from a premium scratch-resistant polycarbonate shell and shock absorbent TPU liner protects against drops
- Printed in the USA
- Easy installation
Uttarakhand and Gurgaon: criminal cases were quashed
Human Rights Watch reports that the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the criminal case there in October 2010. The Gurgaon criminal case was quashed in 2015; Scroll dates the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to September of that year. These were favorable outcomes in specific proceedings, not a single judgment disposing of every dispute between the parties.
Assam and the Supreme Court: the remaining cases were withdrawn
Peri described proceedings in Delhi, Gurgaon, Uttarakhand and Assam/Kamrup, including a civil defamation claim he said sought ₹100 crore. Scroll quoted him recalling 14 matters at one point. Both figures are his reported account, not an independently audited count or a docket-wide valuation.
In December 2015, Peri and Pathfinder Publishing filed transfer petitions in the Supreme Court concerning surviving north-eastern proceedings. They alleged abuse of process and sought to have the matters transferred. On January 22, 2016, IIPM’s counsel told the Court that the respondents had decided to withdraw the proceedings covered by the petitions. The Court recorded that statement and disposed of the petitions because they no longer survived. The order excerpt reproduced by Scroll says the respondents had “decided to withdraw the proceedings, which are subject matter of transfer in the present petitions”. Scroll reproduces the reported order and Peri’s account of the result.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What “won” means in this case
Peri’s win was the cumulative result of defending proceedings over years: the Delhi publication restriction was modified, criminal matters in Uttarakhand and Gurgaon were quashed, and the remaining proceedings covered by the transfer petitions were withdrawn. The Supreme Court did not decide the truth of every allegation, issue a comprehensive ruling on all the cases, or adjudicate the merits of the withdrawn proceedings. Its January 2016 action was procedural: after counsel represented that the covered cases would be withdrawn, the transfer petitions no longer required a decision.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Peri described his approach in excerpts from a Facebook post reproduced by Scroll: “I always believed that if I was wrong, I would unhesitatingly apologise and if I was right, it would not be settled or compromised but decided by a judicial order.” He also said the dispute “had to end in courts and not in board rooms.” Those statements explain why he framed the final withdrawal as a legal victory rather than merely a private settlement.
The scale and personal cost of the litigation
The proceedings required substantial time and money, according to Peri’s accounts reported at different times. Human Rights Watch quoted him in 2016 describing about 100 court hearings and costs “in crores”; it did not independently verify a total. Mint’s 2013 profile reported an estimate of at least ₹1 crore in legal costs, attributed to a source and confirmed by Peri at that time. These are dated, attributed reports, not a final accounting of his expenses. Mint’s 2013 profile provides that earlier estimate.
Regulatory context is separate from Peri’s cases
A later, separate lawsuit involving IIPM and a Caravan article provides context but does not form part of Peri’s litigation. A 2018 Delhi High Court judgment recounted a 2015 Ministry of Human Resource Development handout describing IIPM as unrecognized and as functioning in violation of specified provisions of the UGC Act. In the separate Caravan matter, the court said the challenged passages, read as a whole, appeared prima facie to be based on statements, public-domain facts, or the author’s opinion and research. That proceeding involved different defendants and should not be treated as a ruling in Peri’s cases. The Delhi High Court’s 2018 judgment sets out that separate context.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
