Already Lived With Ill Fame For 23 Years- Delhi HC Directs Tehalka, Tarun Tejpal To Pay 2 Cr Damages To Major General In Defamation Case
The Delhi High Court in a defamation case has awarded damages amounting to Rs. 2 crores to a Major General against the news portal, Tehelka.com.
The Court said that the plaintiff has already lived with ill fame for more than 23 years and at such a stage, apology is meaningless.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “The reputation of the plaintiff has suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal. Much time has passed and plaintiff has already lived with ill fame for more than 23 years. Considering the enormity of the nature of defamation, apology at this stage is not only inadequate but is meaningless.”
The Bench noted that the disconsolate reality is, wealth lost can always be earned back; howbeit, the scar to one’s repute once etched in the soul, yields nothing but forlorn even if millions are granted in reparation.
“Truth is considered to be the best vindication against slander as wisely quoted by Abraham Lincoln. Yet, truth lacks the potency to restore the reputation that one loses in eyes of a society which is always quick to judge”, also said the Bench.
Advocates Chetan Anand and Akash Shrivastava appeared on behalf of the plaintiff while Senior Advocate Meet Malhotra with Advocate Vivesh B. Saharya and Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocate Petal Chandhok appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Brief Facts -
The plaintiff, a General Officer in the Army with a record of impeccable integrity for 36 years was working as Addl. Director General (ADG), Ordnance Services (Technical Stores) in Army Head Quarters since April 1999. The plaintiff claimed that he was involved in the processing of cases for import of main equipment or the selection which was neither handled by ADG, Weapons, and Equipment (ADG WE) nor he got any specialized knowledge or any role in the introduction and import of new equipment.
Tarun Tejpal, the proprietor of Tehelka.com was responsible for managing the release of news items/ articles on the website. A media blitz was launched in 2001 carrying a story about the alleged corruption in the defence deals relating to the import of new defence equipment. A news and entertainment channel, ZEE Telefilm Ltd. allegedly telecasted selective video pictures of the Army officers and other civilian officers involved in corruption. Thereafter, one of the interstitial transcripts recorded in writing that a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff by a reporter in the presence of the Lieutenant.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The entire case of the plaintiff has been that it is only the comments inserted by defendant No.3 the Supervising Agency which were defamatory and created wrong impression of corruption against the plaintiff. There being no cogent evidence produced against defendant No.5 to 7 of the telecast made by them being derogatory or defamatory in any manner causing loss of reputation to the plaintiff. It is neither the case of the plaintiff nor has been proved by way of evidence that the comments which were admittedly inserted by defendant No.3 Aniruddha Bahal in the transcripts was published in any manner by defendant No.5 to 7 as their own editorial comments.”
The Court said that the defendants have committed an act of defamation against the plaintiff. It considered the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
“Whenever words are per se defamatory and on invasion of a right (as of reputation) on their face, no inquiry is allowed into the character of actual harm suffered and no further proof of damages is required. This class of defamation is actionable per se; i.e. they invade a simple or absolute right. On proof of publication of such words and in the absence of any defence, the plaintiff must recover at least nominal damages for the injury to his reputation caused by the defendant, whether such injury was malicious or accidental, although malice may be shown to entitle him to increased damages”, held the Court.
The Court noted that the plaintiff in his testimony has deposed that he had served legal notice to the defendants seeking an apology but it met only with refusal. It added that the apology as on day has become irrelevant as the plaintiff has already suffered the Court of Inquiry and has already been punished with severe displeasure for his conduct which was held to be unbecoming of an Army Officer.
Accordingly, the High Court awarded damages to the plaintiff along with the costs of the suit.
Cause Title- Major General M.S. Ahluwalia v. M/s Tehelka.com (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:5073)
