Bombay High Court granted an interim relief, directs editor of ‘Loksatta’ to take down defamatory posts

Bombay High Court granted an interim relief, directs editor of ‘Loksatta’ to take down defamatory posts

Recently Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted an interim relief to editor of ‘Loksatta’ in an defamation case on the ground that defendant no. 1 & 2 prima facie did not able to justify their alleged act of defamation and Hon’ble court further relied on Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chitroopa Palit (AIR 2004 Bom. 143) explaining the different stand taken by English Law and Indian Law.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Defendants have published an alleged defamatory article on their their e-paper “Sprouts”, which has been circulated on Facebook page and Twitter account of Defendant No. 1. Apart from seeking an unconditional apology from the said Defendants, the Plaintiffs have sought ancillary reliefs, including decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 100 crores. The Ho’ble Court on 14.11.2022 prima facie found the articles to be defamatory and further directed that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall not in any manner republish, re-post, upload, forward or circulate the news reports/articles dated 03rd November, 2022 and 06th November, 2022 or any part thereof, containing similar allegations against the Plaintiff. it is stated in the said articles that the Plaintiff No. 2, being the editor of Marathi Daily “Loksatta” had attended a lunch hosted by the Deputy Chief Minister, he had taken lunch at the said event and that he had also received gift in the form of a voucher during the said event. It is indicated that by such actions, the Plaintiff No. 2 had compromised the hallowed principles that journalists are supposed to follow and that he also caused articles published in Marathi Daily that allegedly favoured the Deputy Chief Minister and other politicians.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that a perusal of the affidavit in reply filed in the present application would show that the said Defendants have sought to justify their actions. It is stated that, other than claiming that the actions of the Plaintiff No. 2 resulted in comprising the high standards of journalism, there is no other justification given in the affidavit in  reply. Much emphasis is placed in the reply on the alleged admission on the part of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiff No. 2, did, in fact, attend the event in the context of which the said articles/ news reports were published in the e-paper of the Defendant Nos. 1and 2. Learned counsel further tried to distinguish between English Law and Indian Law on the subject and placed reliance on aforesaid judgment.

It is submitted that when there is no prima facie justification in the stand taken by the contesting Defendants, interlocutory reliefs ought to be granted in such cases

On the other hand, no one appeared for Defendant no. 1 & 2.

HON’BLE COURT’s OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Pitale while placing reliance on Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chitroopa Palit and Anr (supra) observed while quoting as  :-

“………….it is clear that in India, a mere plea of justification would not be sufficient for denial of interim relief. The defendants, apart from taking a peal of justification will have to show that the statements were made bona fide and were in public interest, and that the defendants had taken reasonable precaution to ascertain the truth, and that the statements were based on sufficient material which could be tested for its veracity. Therefore, in India, the Court is very much entitled to scrutinise the material tendered by the defendants so as to test its veracity and to find out whether the said statements were made bona fide and that whether they were in public interest. Therefore, in India, even at the interlocutory stage, the Court is very much entitled to look into the material produced by the defendants for the plea of justification, so as to test its veracity with regard to the allegations, alleged to be defamatory.”

Hon’ble Court further observed that :-

“15. Applying the said test to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court in the present application, it is found that there does not appear to be even prima facie justification offered by the said Defendants for publishing the said news reports/articles in its e-paper…………..”

In view of the above, the Hon’ble court has directed the defendant no. 1 & 2 to take down all the alleged defamatory material from portal and social media accounts viz. facebook, twitter and Whatsapp and further directed to Facebook and Twitter to take down such defamatory posts if the defendant no. 1 & 2 fails to do so.

Case title :- Indian Express & Anr. Vs. Umesh Padmakar Gujrathi & Ors.

Case no. :- SUIT NO. 72 OF 2023

Order date :- 05.06.2023