Delhi District Court
Ashok Singh Rana vs M/S. Zee Television Ltd on 23 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
II (CENTRAL DISTRICT): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 325/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0096672003
Ashok Singh Rana
S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana
R/o A10, New Police Lines,
Delhi - 110009
........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Zee Television Ltd.
135, Dr. Annie Beasent Road,
Continental Building, Worli,
Mumbai - 400018
(Maharashtra)
2. Sh. Arun Srivastava
Researcher of Programme
Mystery Unfold
Sector16A, Free Star Studio,
Film City, NOIDA (U.P.) and also at
EL' TV C/o Zee TV
J27, South ExtensionI,
New Delhi - 110049
3. 'India's Most Wanted'
Zee Network
P.O. 6589, Worli,
Mumbai - 400018; also at
Brig City House,
2, Masjid Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 1
4. Sh. Sohaib Ilyasi
Anchor, "India's Most Wanted"
Brig City House,
2, Masjid Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
......... Defendants
Date of Institution: 16.03.2001
Judgment Reserved on: 18.01.2016
Judgment Pronounced on: 23.01.2016
JUDGMENT (Oral):
(1) Recently, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph of Supreme Court of India while addressing Bar Council of India Meet at Chennai on 26.07.2015 citing pressure on the judiciary during the Nirbhaya rape case, had remarked that Media Trials in pending cases should be avoided and thereby judges saved of the enormous strain created by it. "Please stop trying (cases) in the media till a case is over. Never try a case in the media, it creates a lot of pressure on judges, they are also human beings," Referring to "the amount of pressure that is built," he recalled how a judge who dealt with the case had once told him that "had he not given that punishment, they would have hung him." The Judge said "If I had not given that punishment they would have hung me, the media had already given their verdict, (like) it is going to be this only," according to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph. He, however, added, "he (the Judge who went into Nirbhaya case) had reasons to give the punishment, not because the media said it, but because he had reasons." He said that the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 2 judge who dealt with the sensational case "was also making a casual remark that had it not been done, the people would have hung him because that was the type of pressure... (hence) never ever resort to media trial, you do it after the judgement is delivered."
(2) It is in the light of the above that I now proceed to decide the case filed by the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana seeking damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs from the defendants for airing the docudrama India's Most Wanted - C.P. Shoot Out Case by allegedly twisting and distorting the facts and events thereby causing immense damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and a further directions to the defendants prohibiting the telecaste of Connaught Place Shootout case in any manner.
(3) Here, I may observe that vide order dated 27.07.2006 the present suit bearing CS No.325/2013 under the title 'Ashok Sing Rana Vs. M/s. Zee TV & Ors.' has been consolidated with suit bearing CS No. 323/2013 under the title 'Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' and suit bearing CS No. 324/2013 under the title Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.' involving common evidence and hence all the three files are taken up together but are being disposed off as such.
Plaintiff's Case:
(4) The case of the plaintiff is that he is a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police at the time of filing of the present suit and facing trial in "Connaught Place Shoot Out" in RC No.10 S/(97) dated 02.04.1997 under Section 302, Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 3 307, 210 and 34 Indian Penal Code. It is pleaded that the defendant no.1 company is into the business of making, producing and telecasting programmes involving general public interest, whereas the defendants no.
2, 3 and 4 are associated with the defendant no.1 in shooting and producing episodes in the INDIA'S MOST WANTED series aired on the Zee Telefilms channels/ network. According to the plaintiff, when he was in judicial custody in the aforesaid case and was facing trial, the defendant decided to produce and air a documentary drama (docudrama) on the Connaught Place Shoot Out case. It is pleaded that the incident was to be shot using actors who were look likes of the accused and wide publicity was given to the proposed production and airing of the docudrama pursuant to which the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants seeking to restrain the defendants from producing and telecasting the aforesaid 'docudrama' and informing them that the accused were facing trial in the case and if the defendants did not desist from producing and airing the same, they would suffer grave and irreparable damage to their reputation, apart from the fact that the airing of such docudrama would constitute a trial be media in respect of an incident which was subjudice.
(5) It is further pleaded that the defendants did not pay any heed to the said legal notice and on 17.03.1998 the defendants aired a docudrama as an episode in the "INDIA'S MOST WANTED" series and shown the plaintiff as a "wanted" fugitive from justice. It is further pleaded that the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 4 defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi insinuated that the plaintiff and others had in coldblood murdered innocent citizens simply because the plaintiff wanted a promotion and episode cast the plaintiff as a brutal and murderous person who had deliberately killed innocent citizens. According to the plaintiff, the entire chain of events was reconstructed and shown in graphic details thereby jeopardising the plaintiff's right in trial and the powerful and perverse depiction of the plaintiff in the audiovisual media had a profound effect on the plaintiff's reputation amongst his family, friends and members of the general public. It is pleaded that the loss of personal and professional reputation suffered by the plaintiff was significant and widespread and and the plaintiff had quantified the loss to his reputation at Rs.10 Lacs only. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is a highly efficient officer of the Delhi Police and has been given series of commendation certificates by the Commissioner of Police and other high police officers for showing exemplary devotion to duty. According to the plaintiff, with the telecasting of the episode on the Connaught Place Shoot Out the achievements of the plaintiff's entire career have been set at nought and the plaintiff's professional and personal reputation is completely diminished, for which the defendants are liable to pay the damages to compensate the plaintiff for the loss and injury accruing to the plaintiff's name and reputation.
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 5 (6) In this background, the plaintiff is seeking damages to the tune of Rs.10 lacs from the defendants and permanent injunction thereby prohibiting the telecast of the Connaught Place Shoot Out case in any manner.
Defendant's Case:
(7) Pursuant to the filing of the suit, summons were issued to the defendants who had put in their appearance in the Court. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that "India's Most wanted - India Fights Back" is an immensely popular serial on ZEE TV and provides information to the public about alleged criminals and shows a reenactment of real life crimes.
It is pleaded that in this serial the defendants has covered various crime stories and the first episode covered the "C.P. Shoot Out Case" wherein the misadventure of excessive police action was shown. It is further pleaded that in some episodes they not only pointed out at the shortcomings of the police inaction but also showered praise on the efficiency and the dedication of the police when deserved and it provided valuable suggestion to the public about how to protect themselves from thieves, robbers and house servants by providing valuable suggestions. It is also pleaded that the serial is informative in nature in public interest and is not directed against any one alleged criminal or a crime incident and lately even police have sought the help of the defendants and the serial has helped the police Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 6 in apprehending five dreaded criminal. According to the defendants, they did not intend to cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and neither the plaintiff nor any other member of the police party have not been branded or referred to as criminals and the sole aim of the defendants was to create awareness/ knowledge of the actual incidents in the minds of the public at large. It is pleaded that the injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff against the defendants cannot be granted since it would impinge upon the rights of the defendants guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19 (1)
(a). According to the defendants, innumerable number of articles have been published in the newspapers and other print media not only providing information about the incident but also condemning it as well. It is further pleaded that the defendants have not caused any defamation to the plaintiff and the episode "C.P. Shoot Out Case" was not aired qua the actions of the plaintiff and has covered the shoot out from the public point of view. It is also pleaded that the present suit does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and the plaintiff has no right to claim any damages against the defendants.
(8) On merits, the defendants have denied all the allegations made against them by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the producing and airing of the programme "India's Most Wanted" would in no way prejudice the plaintiff's right or constitute a trial by media as asserted by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has depicted a wrong version about the serial and have tried to mislead this Court by narrating a wrong picture of Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 7 the programme. According to the defendants, the contents of the impugned programme consists of fair comments on matters of public importance and there cannot be any doubt that the impugned progamme was telecast in public interest. It is pleaded that the entire chain of events were reconstructed and shown in graphic details to bring to light certain true facts not known to the general public at large and not to jeopardize the right of the plaintiff in the trial. (9) The defendant no.4 Sh. Sohaib Ilyasi has also filed his written statement wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that there is no cause of action against him as he was not the anchor in the Programme 'India's Most Wanted' and it was late Ms. Anju Ilyasi who was the anchor of the episode. According to the defendant, the programme 'India's Most Wanted' was a factual picturization of truthful events and has always projected the correct factual event through media in order to bring public awareness and an unbiased and truthful narration of an incident in order to guide the public and help prosecution cannot be prejudicial to anyone. It is further pleaded that the Connaught Place Shoot out case was extensively covered print media by way of various articles and even in news headlines even prior to the telecast of the aforesaid programme by the defendant.
(10) On merits, the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi has denied all the allegations made against him. It is pleaded that the defendant no.4 is not Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 8 associated with the defendant no.1 in the programme 'India's Most Wanted' as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the defendant no.4 never received any legal notice from the plaintiff as alleged. According to the defendant no.4, the programme was intended to depict the truth and project a truthful and original picture of the incident occurred. ISSUES FRAMED:
(11) The plaintiff has filed his replications to the written statements of the defendants. It is evident from the record that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 25.11.2002 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has framed the following issues in both the connected cases:
1. Whether on account of producing and airing serial "Docudrama"
on the Connaught Place Shoot Out case, the defendants are not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for defamation and for causing loss and hurt to the personal and professional reputation and good name of the plaintiff? (OPP)
2. Whether the defendants are thereby liable to be injuncted permanently from airing or telecasing the episode "Docudrama"on the Connaught Place shoot out case? (OPP)
3. Relief.
(12) I may note that though no formal issues have been framed in the present case. Vide order dated 27.07.2006 all the three cases under the title 'Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors', Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' and 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. Zee TV & Ors.' have been consolidated and hence when the cases were at final stage, with the consent Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 9 of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties the aforesaid issues were also adopted in the present case.
EVIDENCE:
(13) In order to discharge the onus upon him, the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and his father Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana as PW2. On the other hand the defendants no. 1 to 3 have examined Rajesh Choudhary, Manager (Legal) as DW1 and the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi has examined himself as DW4.
(14) Here, I may observe that initially the suits were filed before the Delhi High Court and vide order dated 19.03.2001 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri in case under the title 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors.' directed the listing of all the three suits together.
Further, vide order dated 27.07.2006 passed in the case under the title 'Inspector Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' all the three cases i.e, 'Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors', Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' and 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. Zee TV & Ors.' have been consolidated by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court since the controversy in all the three cases is almost same and the common evidence has to be led. It has also been observed by the Ld. Predecessor Court that the case bearing No. 300/2006 (i.e. case under the title 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television') shall be treated as the main case and the evidence Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 10 recorded in the said case, shall be read in other matters also. Therefore, the witnesses examined by the defendants in all the three cases is the same and has to be read in all the three cases.
(15) For the sake of convenience, the details of the witnesses examined by both the parties and their depositions are put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. No. Name of witness Deposition
Witnesses of the plaintiff:
1 Ashok Singh Rana PW1 Ashok Singh Rana is the plaintiff himself who in
(PW1) his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A
has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance on the Certificates of Commendation which are Mark A to Mark C. In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
➢ That in the criminal case he along with nine other persons including Anil Kumar and ACP S.S. Rathi had been convicted by the Sessions Court but he has filed an appeal against the said judgment.
➢ That the incident had taken place on 31.03.1997; FIR was registered against him and others on 02.04.1997 and he had surrendered before the court of Ld. CMM on 31.07.1997.
➢ That since the date of incident, news items were published regularly in the newspaper and name of all the members of the police team used to be published in the Print Media as well as Electronic Media.
➢ That first time the episode relating to the incident was telecast on 17.03.1998 and in the said episode the incident was reconstructed by look Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 11 alike actors and he has shown as fugitive despite the fact that he was in judicial custody.
➢ That the print as well as electronic media also highlight the bravery act of the police force and the media had also highlighted his bravery act on number of occasions.
➢ That police take the help of media to aware the public at large about the criminal, terrorists and criminal activities.
➢ That some of the serials are in the interest of the public but some of the episodes are damaging in nature.
➢ That he is not aware whether five criminals were apprehended on the basis of episode telecast in the series 'India's Most Wanted'.
➢ That his reputation was damaged by telecasting the said episode because the episode was reconstructed by the media as per its convenience to malign his reputation.
➢ That before telecasting the episode, CBI had filed the list of 84 witnesses along with charge sheet, however the prosecution had examined only 74 witnesses.
➢ That before telecasting the said serial his well wishers including his colleagues, friends and relatives believed that the said incident had occurred while he was performing his duties but after seeking the said episode they started believing that he had some personal grudge against the deceased and had killed him to satisfy the said personal grudge.
➢ That none had communicated to him in writing about the said feeling but the same was conveyed to him orally by a large number of persons.
2. Ram Pal Singh PW2 Ram Pal Singh Rana is the father of the plaintiff Rana (PW2) who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/A has supported the case of the plaintiff. He has deposed on the following aspects:
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 12
1. That he and his family members are facing a lot of trauma and mental tension and social disrepute amongst their relatives, friends and neighbours who pass sarcastic remarks against his family.
2. That because of telecasting the wrong facts and circumstances in the said docudrama, the children of the plaintiff feel humiliated amongst their friends in the school and the vicinity which had also adversely affected the grooming of the children of the plaintiff and their future prospects.
3. That in order to achieve unlawful commercial gain and for capitalizing on sensationalism had misused the misfortune which happened during the entire episode of the shoot out.
4. That the neighbours and the friends had severed off their relations with him after the telecast of said episode and he was shocked to see a drastic change in the attitude and behaviour of his friends and neighbours after broadcasting the said docudrama.
5. That the image of the plaintiff was ruined by the defendants by telecasting the abovesaid docudrama aired by the defendant no.1 twice.
In his crossexamination, the witness PW2 has deposed on the following aspects:
➢ That they are residing in the Police Line area since 1970 and entire neighbourhood in Delhi Police Lines is aware about the present case.
➢ That the police personnels living in the area do not talk to them as they feel bad for them.
➢ That he cannot give the names of any of persons and even their relations do not want to talk to them.
➢ That he cannot tell the period between the date of shoot out and airing of the serial and whatever dates he has given in his affidavit at the time of Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 13 preparing the same, he has forgotten.
➢ That he cannot tell as to the number of serials in this regard were aired by the defendant nor can he tell the date when he saw the serial.
➢ That his son has been sentenced in the shoot out case by the Sessions Court for Life Imprisonment and the Ld. Session Judge held that the plaintiff along with others were guilty and committed the offence knowingly.
➢ That they have filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
➢ That he was in Delhi Police and retired as an Inspector and was the Investigating Officer in number of cases during his service.
➢ That he cannot say anything about the police officials going to media and showing their progress in solving the matters on TV and displaying the accused persons.
➢ That he cannot tell whether the FIR had been lodged, case was taken over by the session's court and charges framed in the case before the alleged serials were aired by the defendants.
➢ That he cannot give the name of the person who used to host the said serial and states that Zee TV was there.
➢ That two persons had died in the Connaught Place Shoot Out and one was injured.
➢ That the plaintiff along with other police officials were charge sheeted in connection with Connaught Place shoot out case.
Witnesses of the Defendants:
3. Rajesh Choudhary DW1 Rajesh Choudhary is the Manager (Legal) has in (DW1) his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/4 has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the written statement of defendant no.1.
In his crossexamination the witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 14
➢ That a legal notice was received in their company having been sent by Sh. Anil Kumar but he does not recollect whether two notices dated 24.03.1998 and 24.04.1998 having been sent by plaintiff were received in his office or not.
➢ That Ms. Sohaib Ilyasi was producer and director and anchor of the said serial which was aired on 17.03.1998 and retelecast on 24.03.1998.
➢ That a criminal case was spending against the plaintiff when the India's Most Wanted serial was being aired.
➢ That he does not recollect whether look alike of plaintiff Sh. S.S. Rathi was shown hitting the car of the deceased person by his official police gypsy, subsequently dragging the car of occupant on the road shooting them with pistol at point blank range and kicking the bodies.
➢ That the plaintiff and his team was in judicial custody on 17.03.1998 and 24.03.1998 and they were not wanted or that they were fugitives.
➢ That since the date of the occurrence of the incident, all the version of mass media had had carried the same news and the said series was broadcasted after almost one year of the incident. ➢ That as per the uplinking and downlinking guidelines issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Broad Casting Company) is required to keep the content for the period of 90 days.
➢ That the CD of the said programme was kept for 10 long years by Z television which later got damaged.
4. Sohaib Ilyasi DW4 Sohaib Ilyasi is the defendant no.4 who in his (DW4) examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/A has corroborated what has been earlier stated in the written statement which is Ex.DW4/1. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 15 Short Discussion on Evidence:
(16) At the initial stage when the suit was filed the CD of the 'docudrama' on the "CP Shoot out case" had been produced before the Delhi High Court and duly played in the Court on 09.10.1998 but for reasons best known to the defendants the said CD/ micro cassette was thereafter never placed on record. The plaintiff throughout had been raising an objection with regard to the authenticity of the CD played before the Delhi High Court claiming it to be doctored and also on the correctness of the events as shown in the visuals. It is in this background that in order to put an end to this controversy the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 06.05.2010 passed an order in CM (M) No. 612/2000 directing the Trial Court to call for the Micro Cassettes seized in FIR No. 94/2000 dated 27.03.2000 to ascertain if the contents are not different to what was shown to the Court and then proceed in accordance with law. Pursuant to the same the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had repeatedly summoned for the said micro cassette which was never produced and ultimately on 12.05.2011 Inspector R.K. Ojha (examined as PW5 in connected case bearing CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.) personally appeared before the Ld. Predecessor Court when it was for the first time that the Delhi Police informed the Court that no such micro cassette was ever seized in case FIR No. 94/2000, under Sections 498A/304/201/34 IPC, State Vs. Sohaib Ilyasi. It is in this background Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 16 that the defendants being the Producers and Broadcasters were directed to produce the same in the Court. Initially the defendants were highly evasive and stated that the same was not preserved and had been misplaced/ destroyed during the shifting of the office at Mumbai but later on 18.12.2015 they most reluctantly placed on before this Court a soft copy of the 'docudrama' on the "CP Shoot out case" in a Pen Drive, copy of which was given to all the parties. The said 'docudrama' of the "CP Shootout Case" was then played in the Court in the presence of the plaintiff and the respective counsels and it was observed by me that many of the portions of the said copy so produced before me by the defendants was found to be erased at places. The Ld. Counsel for Zee Television pleaded his helplessness stating that as per his information the defendants have no other copy of the same and whatever was available, they have produced in the Court.
(17) This being the background, though the plaintiff disputed the authenticity and correctness of the same claiming the same to be doctored but since despite best efforts no copy of the original version was available with the Delhi Police as evident from the proceeding dated 12.05.2011 when Inspector R.K. Ojha, SHO Police Station Pandav Nagar informed the Court that no micro cassette had been seized in case FIR No. 94/2000, under Section 498A/304/201/34 IPC, State Vs. Sohaib Ilyasi; therefore the only version now available with this Court is the one which is in the form of a Pen Drive, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff agreed to proceed on the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 17 basis of the version duly admitted by the defendants who have filed the soft copy before this Court. He has argued that the docudrama does not depict the correct sequence of events which have been twisted and distorted only to sensationalize the incident. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the Trial Court (not disputed by the parties) on the basis of which the Ld. Trial Court had convicted the plaintiff (not disputed by the parties) which conviction has been upheld by the Delhi High Court (not disputed by the parties) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court (not disputed by the parties) and has pointed that in the episode present plaintiff along with Satyaveer Singh Rathi (plaintiff in CS No. 324/2013 under the title Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. M/s. Zee TV & Ors.) and Anil Kumar (plaintiff in CS No. 323/2013 under the title 'Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.) has been shown to be a cold blooded murderer, who had smashed their vehicle into the vehicle of the deceased in order to compel it to stop after which the vehicle of the deceased surrounded it from all the sides by police vehicles and police personnels indulged into indiscriminate firing thereby killing two persons in the vehicle and injuring the third. He has also pointed out that in the docudrama Satyaveer Singh Rathi plaintiff in (CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.) has been shown to be pulling out one of the deceased i.e. Jagjit Singh from the driver seat, dragging him and after throwing him on the ground pumping bullets into him and thereafter kicking his dead body. Here, I may note that while paying the 'docudrama' in the Court, it Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 18 has been noticed that after this portion where the deceased Jagjit Singh has been shown to have been killed and his body was shown to have been dragged and the bullets have been pumped into his chest, suddenly the remaining portion where the plaintiff is shown to have kicked the dead body has been erased where screen has became blank for about three seconds.
(18) It is an admitted case of the defendants and never disputed that when the docudrama 'India's Most Wanted' was scripted, prepared and telecasted, the plaintiff was in Judicial Custody, the investigations were complete and the charge sheet in the case had been filed and hence there was sufficient opportunity for the makers and broadcasters to have verified the correctness of the contents which they apparently did not do. The distortion of the events in the version of the docudrama visavis the events as revealed during investigations and found established in the Court (as upheld till the Hon'ble Supreme Court) are now being put in a tabulated form as under:
Sr. No. Disputed facts/ events Charge sheet filed by Findings of Ld. Trial shown/ display by Zee CBI Court/ High Court/ TV Hon'ble Supreme Court
1. (a) Hit the esteem car Out of 15 persons 10 Supreme Court Held in from behind with a persons have been charge Para No. 59: "We have gypsy and all police sheeted and 5 persons seen the site plan and vehicles surrounded have been placed in notice that ACP Rathi the vehicle of the Column No. 12 as they (plaintiff in CS No. deceased did not fire. 324/2013 under the title
(b) Shot from a point (a) No mention of the 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 19 black range from his vehicle of the plaintiff Vs. Zee TV & Ors.) was pistol. hitting the vehicle of the sitting in his Gypsy
(c) Kicked the injured deceased from behind or about 15 meters away with his leg, the police vehicles from the car when the
(d) Dragging the car surrounding the vehicle of incident happened and occupants out of the the deceased from all the Ashok Singh Rana was car. sides. with him when the
(b) No mention of incident of shooting took Satyaveer Singh Rathi place.
shooting the deceased Jagjit Singh from point (a) No finding of either blank range. Trial Court or Delhi
(c) No mention of any High Court or the police officer kicking the Hon'ble Supreme Court injured with legs. on the vehicle of
(d) No mention of Satyaveer Singh Rathi dragging the occupants hitting the vehicle of the out of the car. deceased from behind.
(b) No finding of either Trial Court or Delhi High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Satyaveer Singh Rathi shooting the deceased Jagjit Singh from point blank range.
(c) No finding of either Trial Court or Delhi High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dragging the occupants out of the car.
(d) No finding of either Trial Court or Delhi High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court on any police officer kicking the injured with legs and throwing him Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 20 on the ground.
2. The report of CFSL The report Dated The Trial Court, High reveals that the pistol 26.04.1997 filed by CFSL Court as well as the was not in working CBI is as follows: Hon'ble Supreme Court order. The Italian Pistol of did not give any findings 7.65mm is in working on this report.
order and fired through.
Transcript of the relevant/ offending portion in the Docudrama:
(19) Now coming to the portion which have been highlighted as offending, the Transcript of the same is as under:
First Episode ➢ India's Most Wanted ke premier show me aaj pesh hai.... Sutron ke mutabik 31.03.1997 ko Dilli Police ne (photograph of S.S. Rathi plaintiff in CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.' along with the newspaper cutting, Dilli Police ne do begunahon ko goli se uda diya, has been shown) UP ke kukhyat apradhi ke badle do nirdosh vyapariyon ko dilli police ne bhoon dalaa.
➢ Thereafter there is a narration of the events and recreated version. A police gypsy is shown to have hit the car after which the police officers surrounded the car from three sides and indiscriminately fired at two persons (This portion, it is alleged, not as per the version established during investigation or trial and the perusal of the Charge Sheet and the Judgments of the Ld. Trial Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 21 Court, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court confirm the same).
➢ Crime Branch ke mukhya Commissioner ne bataya ki gaadi me baithe hue logon ne police par pehle goliyan chalai thi. (20) Thereafter certain comments which have been and so highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as objectionable are as under:
➢ Dinesh Goyal (Victim's brother) has been shown with comments "....Jab humne vahan ja kar dekha to un logon ne unko terrorist declare kar diya tha.....:" Thereafter, a public person is shown with the comments "..... Hum to unke hathon me kathputliyon ki tarah hain. Jab man chahe to humare hath me revolver de denge . Drugs jeb me dal denge to hum kya karenge....."
➢ Towards the ends of the episode, it has been displayed that India's Most Wanted - India Fights Back is a Crime Prevention Team.
Also later in the programme, Dilli police ke policekarmiyon ne do massom naujavanon ko maut ke ghat utaar diya.
➢ India's Most Wanted - India Fights Back, Crime Prevention Team with Fax No. 0116839451 has been shown. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants are a self styled vigilant team who cannot take over the essential state function of investigations of a criminal offence.Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 22
Second Episode:
(21) When the second episode starts, it starts with the case of Netherland citizen Marshal Timer Eds aged 25 years who overstayed in India. Thereafter it comes to CP Shoot Out case.
➢ Connaught Place me dilli police karmiyon ne do logon ko maut ke ghat utaar diya. Thereafter, three vehicles were shown to have surrounded another car from three sides.
➢ At 3:17 Minutes of the soft copy of the docudrama as filed in the Court, it has been shown that information regarding Yasin was received with Anil Kumar, when photograph of ACP S.S. Rathi (plaintiff in CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.) is prominently shown to which the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has serious objections as it reveals the identity of ACP S.S. Rathi.
➢ Thereafter, Inspector Anil Kumar is shown to be communicating about the information that the person sitting in the blue colour car with UP number, they received order of following the car (this version is established in the Charge Sheet and also during trial). Jagjit was mistaken as criminal Yasin.
➢ Throughout this episode the narration is on the basis of the sources i.e. Sutron ke Mutabik which is despite the fact that the investigations had been completed and the charge sheet was filed in Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 23 the Court and hence according to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the narration should have been on the basis of investigations. ➢ 14 police officials are shown to have collected at the spot with arms and ammunitions and thereafter they all surrounded the car which their vehicles from all three sides, which according to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is a version which is factually incorrect and not a version establishing during the investigations as reflected in the Charge Sheet or established during trial.
➢ At 5:29 to 5:31 minutes of the soft copy of the docudrama as filed in the Court, the police party/ plaintiff is shown to have dragged Jagjit Singh outside the vehicle, thrown him on the ground and pumped another bullet into his chest, which again is not the correct version established during trial and this has been so picturized only for sensitizing the event.
➢ Sutron ke mutabik, hatya jaisa sangin apradh karne ke baad bhi in accused police karmiyon ke hosh thikane nahi aaye aur ulta inhone sharif bhartiya naagrikon ke upar firearms rakhne aur police par pehle goli chalane ka (photograph of S. S. Rathi is shown in the background) jhutha mukadma dayar kar diya... Thereafter Dinesh Goyal (Victim's Brother) comments: "......Joh ye encounter ya sab kuch kiya hai ye police ne kiya hai aur unhe show kiya hai ki vo terrorist usme travel kar rahe hain. Aur jab humne vahan ja kar dekha to unhone unko terrorist declare kar diya tha.... Par timely Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 24 hum log press conference pahunch gaye they to press conference ne humare taraf vo kiya hum yeh unko batane mein kaamyab rahe ki ye log terrorist nahin they or ye innocent businessmen they or jinko police ne apne out of turn promotion ke liye or unko us ke liye mara hai..." (This entire portion has been objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as being an attempt to promote the case of the deceased).
➢ Question put by the Anchor: Police ka yeh kehna hai ki Italian revolver apke bhai ke pas se mili hai.... Apka kya kehna hai? ➢ Dinesh Goyal: Aisa hai voh kisi weapon ke bare me nahin jante they aur unke pas aisa koi weapon nahin tha na unhone aisa koi weapon rakha. Yeh to CBI ne bhi clear kar diya ki joh weapon uske vahanpar rakha tha voh Police ne plant kiya hai. Voh do mahine kae pehle se hi nahin chla tha. This portion has been objected to by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff being an attempt to overreach the version of the charge sheet in order to prejudice the case of the plaintiff which was subjudice at the relevant time. ➢ Public Person: Pehly pucha jana chahiye tha yah warn kiya jana chahiye tha. Unka identification lena chahiya tha unhe marne se pehle.
➢ Public Person: Aise kal ko humko bhi utha kar band kar denge ke apki gaadi me yeh nahin hai... apne usko mara hai ya kuch bhi kar diya hai... Aam aadmi ki kya surakha hai.... Kuch bhi nahi hai, Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 25 Hum toh unke hathon me kathputliyon ki tarah ghoom rahe hain... Jab marzi band kar deh humare hath me revolver den den. Drug humari jeb me dal denge to hum to ho gaye. We are not happy at all.... Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the above portion is highly objectionable as it discredits the entire Institution of Police and encourages/ spreads dissatisfaction against the Institution of Police.
➢ Victim's brother: Yeh to court to decide karna hai ki unko kya saza deni chahiye par unko saza aisi milni chahiye taki dobara koin bhi aadmi apni duty jo law enforcement agency hai agar vo hi is tarah ke kam karega to aam citizen ke liye kya hoga.... To aisa ek precedent Government/ Court to banana chahiye taki koi bhi dobara is tarah ki negligence yah is type ka koi kam kare to usko sochne se pehle uske rongte khade ho jayen ki agar mai aisa karunga to mere liye bhi koi kanoon hai..... (Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has objected to the above portion as the guilt of the plaintiff was declared at the time when this matter was subjudice and even the charges were not settled).
➢ In the end, details of a wanted criminal Gurdeep Singh has been shown....... India's Most Wanted ko bhi iski jaankari dena na bhulen....
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 26 (22) Towards the end the details of the persons associated with the docudrama are exhibited, which clearly indicate the capacity in which one of the defendants i.e. Sohaib Ilyasi has been associated.
Produced by: Vinod Nayyar and Suhaib A. Ilyasi
Concept & Direction: Suhaib A. Ilyasi
Script: Suhaib A. Ilyasi and Tehseen Munaver
Associate Producers: Kuldeep Nayyar and Anju S. Ilyasi
Hostess: Anju S. Ilyasi
Voice over/ Commentary: Babla Kochar
Editor: K. Prakash Verma
Research coordinator: Vikram Kapoor
Raga Production Private Limited
(23) It is also necessary for me to note that during trial it stood
established that the above incident was a pure case of mistaken identity. The evidence lead before the Ld. Trial Court confirmed that authentic information about Mohd. Yaseen a desperate/ hardcore wanted criminal of UP was received by Inspector Anil Kumar and this fact was also confirmed during trial by Mohd. Yaseen himself was examined by the prosecution as PW70. In fact Mohd. Yaseen confirmed that on the fateful day he was using a mobile phone bearing No. 9811071368 and had come to Delhi in a Blue Maruti car of UP number and was to meet one Hafiz at Patparganj Mother Dairy at 1:00 - 1:30 PM where he had in fact gone and met Hafiz at Patparganj Mother Dairy and then returned. It was an unfortunate fatal coincidence that even the deceased Pradeep Goel and Jagjit Singh had come to the Mother Dairy Patparganj at the same time in a blue colour Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 27 Maruti car of UP number and Jagjit Singh had strong resemblance with Mohd. Yaseen. It is in this background that instead of following Mohd. Yaseen the police party instead followed the vehicle of the deceased mistakenly and mistook all these young men to be desperate criminals from UP.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:
(24) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and the written memorandum of arguments filed by them. I have also gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses and the material on record. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether on account of producing and airing serial "Docudrama" on the Connaught Place Shoot Out case, the defendants are not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for defamation and for causing loss and hurt to the personal and professional reputation and good name of the plaintiff? (OPP) Issue No.2: Whether the defendants are thereby liable to be injuncted permanently from airing or telecasing the episode "Docudrama" on the Connaught Place shoot out case?
(OPP) Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 28 (25) Both the issues are clubbed together the sake of convenience involving common discussion and being interlinked. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the plaintiff.
(26) In order to discharge the onus upon him, the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and his father Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana as PW2. On the other hand the defendants no. 1 to 3 have examined Rajesh Choudhary, Manager (Legal) as DW1 and the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi has examined himself as DW4. (27) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed his reliance on the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the plaintiff and has vehemently argued that the airing of the telecase of the docudrama of the CP shootout Case under the title "India's Most Wanted" by Zee Television has hurt/ damage/ malign/ defame not only the reputation of plaintiff but the entire family. It is argued that the telecast has created a dent in the reputation of the entire family and humanism is paralyzed and the family has to suffer a lot. It is also pleaded that when the incident happened everybody thought that it happened in the discharge of color of duty but after the telecast was aired on T.V. the attitude/behavior of the friends, relatives and the public perception was totally changed and everybody thought that the incident was not occurred in the discharge of color of duty rather they have killed innocent persons. It is further argued that even the behavior and the well wishers of the police force were drastically changed and the plaintiff was projected/ branded as a villain/killer/criminal. It is Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 29 also argued that the sacrifice done by the Plaintiff for this country was forgotten and the family has to suffer humiliation for no fault of them. It is submitted that the telecast declared the Plaintiff guilty and the life of the plaintiff and the family were made miserable, painful and dejected. It is also argued that the glory/ prestige/ honor/recognition which the Plaintiff achieved after a sheer hard work, zeal and devotion to the duty got vanished and the journey of suffering for the family is not over and is continue. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the image/identity of the Plaintiff is disgrace, ruin and blemish. He has placed his reliance on Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It is argued that the fundamental rights and the human rights of the entire family have been violated for no fault of them and they are part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights, and any decision affecting human life, or which may put an individual's life at risk, must call for the most anxious scrutiny. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the sanctity of human life is probably the most fundamental of the human social values and the reputation of the Plaintiff and his entire family are an important part. It is also argued that one has the right to have and preserve his reputation and also to protect it and fair trial is also a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Ld. Counsel has argued that it is a well settled law Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 30 that everybody is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and has pointed out that the plaintiff was facing trial and the matter was subjudice when the docudrama of the CP Shootout Case was aired on 17.03.1998 and retelecast on 24.03.1998. He has placed his reliance on the 200th Report of the Law Commission of India and authorities in the case State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi reported in 1997 8 SCC 386; Umesh Kumar Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2013 (10) SCC 591;
Omprakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan & Ors. reported in 2014 (5) SCC 417; Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2012 8 SCC 1; R.K. Anand Vs. Delhi High Court reported in 2009 (8) SCC 106.
(28) The defence of the defendants is that the two episodes of the said serial were properly known in the print and electronic media as C.P. Shootout case and after the incident of Shoot out on 31.3.1997, every newspaper and television media had carried the news in detail with the photographs of all the persons/ police officials involved in the Raiding party and that this went upto the date when the FIR dated 2.4.1997 was registered by the police and even after they were taken into police custody, some time in July, 1997. Therefore, whatever harm was caused to reputation of the plaintiff had already taken place much prior to the airing of the said episodes of the said serial in question and the airing of the said two episodes in March, 1998 was only recapitulation of widely publicised news and had nothing to do with the maligning or defaming the reputation Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 31 or image of the plaintiff, who was already by then charge sheeted by the police and appearing before the Court of Law.
(29) Sh. Bakshi Sri Rang Singh Advocate for the defendants has vehemently argued that on the basis of the FIR registered, case against the plaintiff along with other members of the raiding party, all the accused persons named in the FIR initially were sentenced by the Ld. Sessions Judge, the appeal of the plaintiff and other members of the raiding party was dismissed by the Honorable High Court of Delhi on 18.9.2009 and the Honorable Supreme Court of India on 2.5.2011 dismissed all the criminal appeals being appeal Nos.2231, 2476, 24772483 and 2484 of 2009, however, the trial, in all the three aforesaid cases continued. He has also placed his reliance on the crossexamination of the plaintiff. It is argued that the witness of the defendant Sh. Rajesh Choudhary (DW1) has duly supported the written statement filed by the defendants. It is also argued that in order to establish defamation the complainant/ must prove firstly that the act of defamation has exposed the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule; secondly that it tend to injure him in his profession or trade and thirdly to cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours etc. He has argued that the plaintiff has failed to establish the required ingredients which are necessary to be proved before anybody is found guilty of having caused disrepute by such a defamation. It is also argued that the defendant company has only portrayed the true and correct facts and has not in any manner harmed the reputation of the plaintiff and the reenactment of the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 32 C.P. Shoot out incident was nothing new and the same has turned out to be substantial proved/ correct. It is further argued that the Channel being a new Channel, such programmes are informative in nature and are protected under Article 19 rule 1(a) of the Constitution of India and it was simply, a dramatization/ recap of widely published news which had occurred almost one year prior to filing of the suit. He has also placed his reliance on the following cases:
1. Essel Infraprojects Limited Vs. Devendra Prakash Mishra, reported in 2015 (1) Bom CR 340.
2. R. Rajagopal alias R.R Gopal & Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 632.
3. Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramanium Swamy, reported in 2006 (87) DRJ 603.
4. Jawaharlal Darda vs Manohar Rao Ganpatrao Kapiskar reported in AIR 1998 SC 2117.
5. Sidhartha Vishisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1
6. Saint Shri Asharam Bapu v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 37.
(30) In so far as the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi is concerned, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the entire claim of the plaintiff against the defendant no.4 is false and frivolous and in order to misled the Court the plaintiff has falsely and malafidely claimed that the defendant no.4 was the commentator of the episode. It is pointed out that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant or any witness has filed the CD/ cassette/ floppy or any other Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 33 reliable evidence to prove that the said episode was anchored by the defendant no.4.
(31) Before coming to the merits of the grounds raised before me, it is necessary to briefly deal with the existing legal position relating to the Rights of the parties before this Court and actionable wrong if any. (32) Coming first to the arguments of the Ld. Counsel plaintiff that by telecast of the docudrama, the reputation of the plaintiff which is an inseparable facet of life has been violated, the act of the defendants thereby infringing upon the Fundamental Right of the plaintiff. The first question which now arises for determination is whether Right to Reputation is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India or not? In this regard, I may observe that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 recognized the right to have opinions and the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 has been recognized to be the subject to the right of reputation of others.
(33) Reputation, it is said, is "not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life". The observations made in the case of D.F. Marion Vs. Minnie Davis are important in this regard and I quote as under:
"....... The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of an ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 34 Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property......"
(34) The Hon'ble Apex Court of our Country recognized this principle and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra in the case Omprakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and others reported in 2014 (5) SCC 417 held that: "....... Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. The memory of nobility no one would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than popularity....."
(35) Also in the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 1 this Court has ruled Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 35 that the reverence of life is insegregably associated with the dignity of a human being who is basically divine, not servile. It was observed that a human personality is endowed with potential infinity and it blossoms when dignity is sustained and the sustenance of such dignity has to be the superlative concern of every sensitive soul. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed and I quote "......... The essence of dignity can never be treated as a momentary spark of light or, for that matter, "a brief candle", or "a hollow bubble". The spark of life gets more resplendent when man is treated with dignity sans humiliation, for every man is expected to lead an honourable life which is a splendid gift of "creative intelligence". When a dent is created in the reputation, humanism is paralysed......"
(36) Again in the case of Umesh Kumar Vs. State of A.P. Reported in (2013) 10 SCC 591 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and I qote as under:
"........ Reputation has been defined in dictionary as "to have a good name; the credit, honour, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report". Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution......"Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 36
(37) Hence, in view of the above, there can be no dispute with this proposition that Good Reputation being an element of Personal Security is protected under the Constitution and is a necessary element in Right to Life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (38) Now coming to the next question relating to the Freedom of Speech and Expression which includes the Right to disseminate Information and whether the Media i.e. Print as well as Electronic can violate this Right of Reputation of an individual? (39) In this regard, I may observe that the concerns relating to this Right to Investigative Journalism and Right of the Media i.e. Print as well as Electronic to disseminate information and the freedom so worded under Article 19 of the Constitution in India were addressed by the Law Commission of India in its 200th Report while specifically dealing with publications in subjudice matters and how they affect Administration of Justice, Fair Trial and Rights of the persons who are accused. (40) Lord Denning had observed that professionally trained Judges are not easily influenced by publications. But in the case of Attorney General Vs. BBC reported in 1981 A.C. 303 (HL), disagreeing with that view of Lord Denning, Lord Dilhorne had stated (pp 335) in yet other oftquoted passage as follows:
"........... It is sometimes asserted that no Judge will be influenced in his Judgment by anything said by the media and consequently that the need to prevent the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 37 publication of matter prejudicial to the hearing of a case only exists where the decision rests with laymen. This claim to judicial superiority over human frailty is one that I find some difficulty in accepting. Every holder of a Judicial Office does his utmost not to let his mind be affected by what he has seen or heard or read outside the Court and he will not knowingly let himself be influenced in any way by the media, nor in my view will any layman experienced in the discharge of Judicial duties. Nevertheless, it should, I think, be recognized that a man may not be able to put that which he has seen, heard or read entirely out of his mind and that he may be subconsciously affected by it. It is the law, and it remains the law until it is changed by Parliament, that the publications of matter likely to prejudice the hearing of a case before a court of law will constitute contempt of court punishable by fine or imprisonment or both......".
(41) What Lord Denning M.R stated in the Court of Appeal that Judges will not be influenced by the media publicity [Attorney Gen v. BBC : 1981 AC 303 (315) CA], a view which was not accepted in the Houe of Lords in Att Gen vs. BBC 1981 AC 303 (HL).
(42) In fact, Borrie and Lowe in their Commentary on Contempt of Court (3rd Edn, 1996) state that Lord Denning's view is "more a statement of policy rather than literal truth".
(43) I may also observe that Cardozo, one of the greatest Judges of the American Supreme Court, in his 'Nature of the Judicial Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 38 Process' (Lecture IV, Adherence to Precedent. The Subconscious Element in the Judicial Process) (1921) (Yale University Press) referring to the "forces which enter into the conclusions of Judges" observed that "the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course and pass the Judges by". The full text of the passage in the above essay of Cardozo reads thus:
"...... Even these forces are seldom fully in consciousness. They lie so near the surface, however, that their existence and influence are not likely to be disclaimed. But the subject is not exhausted with the recognition of their power. Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and the dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex instincts and emotion and habits and convictions, which make the man, whether he be litigant or Judge ..... There has been a certain lack of candor in much of the discussions of the theme or rather perhaps in the refusal to discuss it, as if Judges must lose respect and confidence by the reminder that they are subject to human limitations....." Cardozo then stated in a very famous quotation, "None the less, if there is anything of reality in my analysis of the Judicial Process, they do not stand aloof on these chill and distant heights; ... The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course, and pass the Judges by........".Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 39
(44) I may observe that Right to free speech in United States of America is absolute and no restraint order against publication is possible unless there is 'clear and present danger' to the right itself but in so far as the position in India is concerned, the same is different. The right to free speech is not absolute as in US but is conditional and restricted by Article 19(2). Treating a publication as criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 where the Court comes to the conclusion that the publication as to matters pending in Court 'tends' to interfere {vide Section 2(c)(iii)} with the administration of justice, amounts to a reasonable restriction on free speech. The view obtaining in USA that trained Judges or even jurors are not influenced by publication in the media as stated by the majority in Nebraska (1976) 427 US 539) was not accepted in England in Attorney General v. BBC 1981 AC 303 (HL) by Lord Dilhorne who stated that Judges and Jurors may be influenced subconsciously and Judges could not claim to be super human was quoted by the Supreme Court in Reliance Petrochemicals. In what manner they are so influenced may not be visible from their judgment, but they may be influenced subconsciously. Even in US, Justice Frankfurter has accepted that Judges and Jurors are likely to be influenced. The view of the Indian Supreme Court even earlier in P.C. Sen In re : AIR 1970 SC 1821 was that Judges and Jurors are likely to be influenced and that view in the AngloSaxon law appears to have been preferred by the Supreme Court Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 40 in Reliance case.
(45) The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with this aspect in the case of Manu Sharma Vs. State reported in 2010 6 SCC 1 had observed and I quote as under:
"......Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant Manu Sharma had been specifically targeted and maligned before and during the proceedings by the media, who proclaimed him as guilty despite even after his acquittal by the trial court. He took us through various news items that were published in English and Hindi dailies. He elaborated that "Justice should not only be done, it should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." This common law rule cannot be ignored.
296. Cardozo, one of the great Judges of the American Supreme Court in his Nature of the Judicial Process observed that the judges are subconsciously influenced by several forces. This Court has expressed a similar view in P.C. Sen, In re and Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay (P) Ltd.
297. There is danger of serious risk of prejudice if the media exercises an unrestricted and unregulated freedom such that it publishes photographs of the suspects or the accused before the identification parades are constituted or if the media publishes statements which outrightly hold the suspect or the accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by the court.
298. Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day, it is not only Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 41 desirable but the least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that trial by media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of justice if either of this causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial.
299. In the present case, certain articles and news items appearing in the newspapers immediately after the date of occurrence, did cause certain confusion in the mind of public as to the description and number of the actual assailants/suspects. It is unfortunate that trial by media did, though to a very limited extent, affect the accused, but not tantamount to a prejudice which should weigh with the court in taking any different view. The freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has to be carefully and cautiously used, so as to avoid interference with the administration of justice and leading to undesirable results in the matters sub judice before the courts.
300. A Bench of this Court in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court clearly stated that it would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order and the media too would not relish the role of being the snoopers for the court. Media should perform the acts of journalism and not as a special agency for the court.
"The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 42 perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law." This will not be fair".
Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will be opposed to the very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India.] It is essential for the maintenance of dignity of the courts and is one of the cardinal principles of the rule of law in a free democratic country, that the criticism or even the reporting particularly, in sub judice matters must be subjected to check and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.
302. In the present case, various articles in the print media had appeared even during the pendency of the matter before the High Court which again gave rise to unnecessary controversies and apparently, had an effect of interfering with the administration of criminal justice. We would certainly caution all modes of media to extend their cooperation to ensure fair investigation, trial, defence of the accused and non interference with the administration of justice in matters sub judice...."
(46) Similar views were recently echoed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Vidya Dhar and Others Vs. Sony Entertainment Television and Anr. CS(OS) 335/2013, IA 2981/2013 Dated 22.02.2013 when it observed that:
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 43
"...... But, at the same time, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (supra), this court is not debarred from prohibiting telecast of a programme for a temporary period under inherent powers, wherever it is satisfied that the interest of justice so requires. The Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 dealt with the inherent power of the court to prohibit the publication of proceedings or evidence of the cases outside the court by the media. Though, it was in the context of open justice, but the court held that apart from Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court had the inherent power to restrain the press from reporting where administration of justice so demanded. This was a nine Judges? Bench judgment, which was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (supra), noting as under:
That, such orders prohibiting publication for a temporary period during the course of trial are permissible under the inherent powers of the court whenever the court is satisfied that interest of justice so requires. As to whether such a temporary prohibition of publication of court proceedings in the media under the inherent powers of the court can be said to offend Article 19(1)(a) rights (which include freedom of the press to make such publication), this Court held that an order of a court passed to protect the interest of justice and the administration of justice could not be treated as violative of Article 19(1)(a). The judgment of this Court in Mirajkar was delivered by a Bench of nine Judges and is binding on this Court.
9. Further, in the aforesaid case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (supra), the Supreme Court Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 44 also held that to see that the administration of justice is not prejudiced or perverted clearly includes power of the Supreme Court/High Court to prohibit temporarily, statements being made in the media which would prejudice or obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice in a given case pending in the Supreme Court or the High Court or even in the subordinate courts.
In view of the law as laid by the Supreme Court as noted above, and having regard to the entire factual matrix and particularly the plaintiffs having preferred an appeal against their conviction and which is subjudice in this court, I am of the view that balancing interest demands that at least till such time the applications of the plaintiffs seeking suspension of their sentence as also the bail, are adjudicated by this court, they need to be saved from any condemnation by the media....."
(47) Earlier, in the case of M.P. Lohia versus State of W.B. and Another reported in 2005 2 SCC 686 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ".....Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interest of justice. The death of Chandni took place on 28102003 and the complaint in this regard was registered and the investigation was in progress. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on 1322004 and special leave petition was pending before this Court. Even then an article has appeared in a magazine called "Saga" titled "Doomed by Dowry"
written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the deceased, giving version of the tragedy Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 45 and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that these type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who were responsible for the said article against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is sub judice. However, to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter as closed and hope that the others concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice".
(48) Again, in the case of Harijai Singh and Another reported in 1996 (6) SCC 466 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that:
"......But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 46 publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by court of law. The editor of a newspaper or a journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances have a far greater circulation and impact than the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are essential even for preservation of the freedom of the press itself. To quote from the report of Mons Lopez to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations "If it is true that human progress is impossible without freedom, then it is no less true that ordinary human progress is impossible without a measure of regulation and discipline". It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression.
"The editor and publisher are liable for illegal and false matter which is published in their newspaper. Such an irresponsible conduct and attitude on the part of the editor, publisher and the reporter cannot be said to be done in good faith, but distinctly opposed to the high professional standards as even a slightest enquiry or a simple verification of the alleged statement about grant of petrol outlets to the two sons of a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, out of discretionary quota, which is found to be patently false would have revealed the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 47 truth. But it appears that even the ordinary care was not resorted to by the contemnors in publishing such a false news items. This cannot be regarded as a public service, but a disservice to the public by misguiding them with a false news. Obviously, this cannot be regarded as something done in good faith.....".
(49) In the year 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Arundhati Roy reported in 2002 3 SCC 343 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
".....Under the Constitution, there is no separate guarantee of the freedom of the press and it is the same freedom of expression, which is conferred on all citizens under Article 19(1). Any expression of opinion would, therefore, be not immune from the liability for exceeding the limits, either under the law of defamation or contempt of court or the other constitutional limitations under Article 19(2).....".
(50) Earlier in the year 1961 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saibal Kumar Vs. B.K. Sen reported in AIR 1961 SC 633 had observed that:
"...... No doubt it would be mischievous for a newspaper to systematically conduct an independent investigation into a crime for which a man has been arrested and to publish the results of that investigation. This is because trial by newspapers, when a trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country is going on, must be prevented. The basis for this view is that such Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 48 action on the part of a newspaper tends to interfere with the course of justice whether the investigation tends to prejudice the accused or the prosecution......".
(51) Again in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi reported in 1997 (8) SCC 386 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
".....A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A Judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law....".
(52) In the case of Rajendra Sail versus M.P. High Court Bar Association and Others 2005 6 SCC 109 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
".....The reach of the media, in the present times of 24 hour channels, is to almost every nook and corner of the world. Further, large number of people believe as correct that which appears in media, print or electronic".
"The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is tremendous. It has to be exercised in the interest of the public good. A free press is one of very important pillar on which the foundation of rule of law and democracy rests. At the same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost responsibility. It must not be abused. It should not be treated as a licence to denigrate other institutions.Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 49
Sensationalism is not unknown. Any attempt to make news out of nothing just for the sake of sensationalism has to be deprecated. When there is temptation to sensationalize, particularly at the expense of those institutions or persons who from the nature of their office cannot reply, such temptation has to be resisted, and if not, it would be the task of the law to give clear guidance as to what is and what is not permitted.....".
(53) I may observe that way back in the year nineteen fifties also the Courts of Law had expressed their serious reservations with regard to the liberty of Press and held it to be subordinate to the Administration of Justice. In the case of Rao Harnarain Vs. Gumori Ram reported in AIR 1958 Punjab 273 it was observed by the Punjab High Court that 'Liberty of the press is subordinate to the administration of justice. The plain duty of a journalist is the reporting and not the adjudication of cases.' The Orissa High Court also took a similar view in the case of Bijoyananda Vs. Bala Kush reported in AIR 1953 Orissa 249 while observing that:
"...... the responsibility of the press is greater than the responsibility of an individual because the press has a larger audience. The freedom of the press should not degenerate into a licence to attack litigants and close the door of justice nor can it include any unrestricted liberty to damage the reputation of respectable persons......"
(54) Similarly, in the case of Harijai Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar : 1996 (6) SCC 466, the Supreme Court observed that the press or journalists enjoy no special right of freedom of expression and the guarantee of Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 50 this freedom was the same as available to every citizen. The press does not enjoy any special privilege or immunity from law. (55) This fact that Judges too are subconsciously influenced by several forces was recently recognized by the Delhi High Court in the case relating to ban on documentary 'India's Daughter'. The Hon'ble Judges while dealing with the case relating to airing of controversial documentary on December 2016 Gang Rape, observed that media trials tend to influence judges by subconsciously creating a pressure. The bench of justices B.D. Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva had observed that although they were primafacie not opposed to airing of the documentary but it should be released after the Supreme Court decides the appeals of the convicts in the matter. They observed ".....Media trials do tend to influence judges. Subconsciously a pressure is created and it does have an effect on the sentencing of the accused/ convict....". Observing that airing of the video could make or ruin the case of one of the rape convicts, Mukesh, it said, "Whether he has shown remorse or not would be considered at the time of his sentencing. Why not wait till the Supreme Court decision?" On the contention that ban on airing of the video till apex court judgement could also lead to gag on reporting of all subjudice matters, the bench said,"We agree". It said that earlier media had a self imposed code of not reporting subjudice matters, but now "media has thrown it (the code) to the winds".
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 51 (56) The issue of Trial by Media was exhaustively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Anand Vs. Delhi High Court, reported in 2009 (8) SCC 106, at page 198 when it observed and I quote as under:
"...... What is trial by media? The expression "trial by media" is defined to mean:
The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny......"
(57) The subject relating to Trial by Media of subjudice matters and how it is likely to prejudice Fair Trial, is an issue of international concern being closely related with the rights of the accused person. In a case where there was publication of the photograph of a suspect, it was held in the case of Attorney General v. Tonks reported in 1934 NZLR 141 (149) (FC) that publication of photographs before trial of person who is arrested will be prejudicial if identification was likely to be an issue, and would amount to contempt and the observation of Justice Blair are reproduced as under:
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 52
"....If a photograph of an accused person is broadcast in a newspaper immediately he is arrested, then such of the witnesses who have not then seen him, may quite unconsciously be led into the belief that the accused as photographed is the person they saw....."
(58) Hence, in the light of the above, the law as it emerges on the subject of 'Trial by Media' or the prejudice due to 'pretrial' publications by the media is that the said freedom of Press is not absolute and is closely linked with Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees the fundamental right of 'freedom of speech and expression', and the extent to which that right can be reasonably restricted is provided under Article 19 (2) by law for the purpose of Contempt of Court and for maintaining the due process to protect liberty. The basic issue is about balancing the freedom of speech and expression on the one hand and undue interference with administration of justice within the framework of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as permitted by Article 19 (2) and that should be done without unduly restricting the rights of suspects/accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a fair trial.
(59) The Law Commission of India in its 200th Report observed that there was no difficulty in stating that under our Constitution, the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression can, by law, be restricted for purposes of contempt of Court. It was observed that at present, the provisions of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 restrict the freedom of speech and expression - which includes the freedom Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 53 of the media, both print and electronic - if any publication interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is actually 'pending' (i.e. when chargesheet or challan is filed, or summon or warrant is issued). (60) The Law Commission of India further noted that if a publication which is made before the filing of a charge sheet or challan, interferes or tends to interfere with the course of justice in connection with a criminal proceeding, the rights of a person who has been arrested and in respect of whom the prejudicial publication is made, are not protected by the law of Contempt of Court. But, if such publications are prejudicial to the suspect or accused, will they not offend the principle of due process rights of a suspect or an accused as applicable in criminal cases and as declared by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India :
AIR 1978 SC 597. Article 21 guarantees that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". In India restrictions can be broader and can be imposed, if they are "reasonable". Restrictions intended to protect the administration of justice from interference can be included in the Contempt Law of our country under Art 19(2), if they are 'reasonable' It is even accepted in our country that actual prejudice of Judges is not necessary for proving contempt. It is sufficient if there is a substantial risk of prejudice.
The principle that "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 54 done" applies from the point of view of public perception as to the Judges being subconsciously prejudiced as has been accepted in UK and Australia.
(61) It is, therefore, settled law that when a conflict arises between fair trial and freedom of speech, the former prevailed because the compromise of fair trial for a particular accused will cause them permanent harm whereas the inhibition of media freedom ends with the conclusion of legal proceedings. It is unthinkable to allow destroying the essential power and duty to protect fair trial of persons accused of crimes because this is an extreme form of 'trial by media' who usurps the function of the Court without the safeguards of procedure, right to cross examine etc. and such publications prejudge the facts and influence the Court, witnesses and others. By and large, while Judges may generally be impervious to influence, the possibility of such influence could not be ruled out altogether. Publishers, Editors/ Script Writers, Producers, Directors, Broadcasters and Journalists who are responsible for the articles and telecasts which interfere with course of Administration of Justice while indulging into trial by media when the issue is subjudice, can be made liable.
(62) Newspapers conducting its own private investigation and publishing the results before or during the trial is perhaps the most blatant example of 'trial by newspaper'. Such publications hider the Court's determination of facts and might otherwise be 'prejudicial'. There is no Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 55 guarantee that the facts published by the newspaper are true, there being no opportunity to crossexamine nor to have the evidence corroborated. There is no guarantee that the published facts will be admitted at the trial, if it amounted to hearsay. In R v. Evening Standard, ex p DPP (1924) 40 TLR 833, the Court found that certain newspapers 'had entered deliberately and systematically on a course which was described as criminal investigation'.
The defence of the newspaper was that they had a duty to elucidate the facts. This defence was rejected by Lord Hewart CJ (p. 835) as follows:
"... While the police or the Criminal Investigation Department were to pursue their investigation in silence and with all reticence and reserve, being careful to say nothing to prejudice the trial of the case, whether from the point of view of the prosecution or .... of the defence, it had come to be somehow for some reason the duty of newspapers to employ independent staff of amateur detectives who would bring to an ignorance of the law of evidence a complete disregard of the interests whether of the prosecution or the defence...."
(63) This being the background and the concerns emanating from various sources, certain Self Regulatory Norms have been put in place by the Press Council of India as Norms of Journalistic Conduct. The basis behind these guidelines is in accordance with the recognition of the media's position is a near omnipotent entity which can make or break any individual, institution or thought (Reliance on: Press Council of India, Norms of Journalistic Conduct, 2010 Preface by Hon'ble Justice G.N. Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 56 Ray). The mandate of the Press Council of India as reflected in the 2010 Edition of Norms of Journalistic Conduct (as applicable to the facts of the present case) are reproduced as under:
➢ The Press shall eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material. All sides of the core issue or subject should be reported. Unjustified rumours and surmises should not be set forth as facts [Ref: Part A - 1 (i)] ➢ It is incumbent for newspapers to play a positive role in response to rumours affecting the credibility of financial institutions having public interface. [Ref: Part A - 1 (ii)] ➢ While it is the duty of the press to expose the wrong doings that come to their notice, such reports need to be backed by irrefutable facts and evidences. [Ref: Part A - 1 (iii)] ➢ On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources with the person or the organisation concerned to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the same alongside with due correction in the report where necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect may be appended to the report.
[Ref: Part A - 2 (i)] Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 57 ➢ Newspaper should not publish anything which is manifestly defamatory or libellous against any individual/organisation unless after due care and verification, there is sufficient reason/evidence to believe that it is true and its publication will be for public good. [Ref: Part A - 3 (i)] ➢ Truth is no defence for publishing derogatory, scurrilous and defamatory material against a private citizen where no public interest is involved. [Ref: Part A - 3 (ii)] ➢ The Press has a duty, discretion and right to serve the public interest by drawing reader's attention to citizens of doubtful antecedents and of questionable character but as responsible journalists they should observe due restraint and caution in hazarding their own opinion or conclusion in branding these persons as 'cheats' or 'killers' etc. The cardinal principle being that the guilt of a person should be established by proof of facts alleged and not by proof of the bad character of the accused. In the zest to expose, the Press should not exceed the limits of ethical caution and fair comment. [Ref: Part A - 3 (iv)] ➢ Where the impugned publication is manifestly Injurious to the reputation of the complainant, the onus shall be on the respondent to show that it was true or to establish that it Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 58 constituted fair comment made in good faith and for public good.
[Ref: Part A - 3 (vi)] ➢ Newspapers cannot claim privilege or licence to malign a person or body claiming special protection or immunity on the plea of having published the item as a satire under special columns such as 'gossip', 'parody', etc. [Ref: Part A - 3 (vii)] ➢ Publication of defamatory news by one paper does not give licence to others to publish news/information reproducing or repeating the same. The fact of publication of similar report by another publication does not bestow the status of accuracy on the charges. [Ref: Part A - 3 (viii)] ➢ It is necessary that the press realize its responsibility to the society due to the unique position enjoyed by it in being able to interact directly with the citizenry and utilize its advantageous position for the betterment of the society and the advancement of the country rather than indulging in giving credence to rumours and sensationalism. It is also necessary that the press, particularly the small local press, learn to appreciate the clear distinction between matters of 'public interest' and 'those in public interest'. While gossips and social dealings may be found to be of interest by the public but they serve no public purpose or Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 59 interest and the press should scrupulously avoid wasting its precious space on such matters. [Ref: Part A - 3 (ix)] ➢ Insertion of out of context, uncalled for and irrelevant statements likely to malign a person or an organisation must be eschewed. [Ref: Part A - 3 (x)] ➢ It must be remembered by the Press that the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the democratic set up and enjoyed by the fourth estate also casts on it a responsibility. The newspapers are not expected to use it as a tool by itself creating evidence and later using the evidence to make false propaganda in its own journal. [Ref: Part A - 3 (xii)] ➢ In cases involving personal allegations /criticism, only the concerned person enjoying the locus standi can move the plaint or claim right to reply. However a representative organisation of persons attached to an organisation or a sect / group has the locus standi to move complaints against a publication directly criticising the conduct of a leader. [Ref: Part A - 3 (xiv)] ➢ As a custodian of public interest, the Press has a right to highlight cases of corruption and irregularities in public bodies but such material should be based on irrefutable evidence and published after due inquiries and verification from the concerned source and after obtaining the version of the person/authority being Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 60 commented upon. Newspapers should refrain from barbed, stinging and pungent language and ironical/satirical style of comment. The attempt of the press should be to so shake up the institutions as to improve their working, not to destroy them or the public confidence in their working or demoralize the workforce. A corresponding duty of course devolves on them to ensure that in doing so they present a fair and balanced report, uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration. The Press as a custodian of public interest and a protector of its rights is also expected to bring correct information to its notice so that it is able to correctly judge those to whom it has entrusted the responsibility of running the country. [Ref: Part A - 3 (xv)] ➢ The media and the authorities are two very important pillars of our democracy and for the government to function successfully in public interest a press as responsible as watchful is an essential prerequisite. [Ref: Part A - 3 (xvi)] ➢ So far as the government, local authority and other organs/institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot bring charge of defamation for reports critical of their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties unless the official establishes that the publication was made with reckless disregard for the truth. However, judiciary, which is Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 61 protected by the power to punish for contempt of court, and the Parliament and Legislatures, protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 194 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exception to this rule. [Ref: Part A - 4 (i)] ➢ Publication of news or comments/information on public officials conducting investigations should not have a tendency to help the commission of offences or to impede the prevention or detection of offences or prosecution of the guilty. The investigative agency is also under a corresponding obligation not to leak out or disclose such information or indulge in misinformation. [Ref: Part A -
4 (iii)] ➢ The Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any other similar enactment or provision having the force of law equally bind the press or media though there is no law empowering the state or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the Press/ media.
[Ref: Part A - 4 (iv)] ➢ Right to Privacy is an inviolable human right. However, the degree of privacy differs from person to person and from situation to situation. The public person who functions under public gaze as an emissary/representative of the public cannot expect to be afforded the same degree of privacy as a private person. His acts and conduct as are of public interest ('public interest' being Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 62 distinct and separate from 'of interest to public') even if conducted in private may be brought to public knowledge through the medium of the press. The press has however, a corresponding duty to ensure that the information about such acts and conduct of public interest of the public person is obtained through fair means, is properly verified and then reported accurately. For obtaining information in respect of acts done or conducted away from public gaze, the press is not expected to use surveillance devices. For obtaining information about private talks and discussion while the press is expected not to badger the public persons, the public persons are also expected to bring more openness in their functioning and cooperate with the press in its duty of informing the public about the acts of their representatives. [Ref: Part A - 7 (i)] ➢ It is contrary to the norms of journalism for a paper to identify itself with and project or promote the case of any one party in the case of any controversy/dispute. [Ref: Part A - 10 (ii)] ➢ Excepting where the court sits 'incamera' or directs otherwise, it is open to a newspaper to report pending judicial proceedings, in a fair, accurate and reasonable manner. But it shall not publish anything which, in its direct and immediate effect, creates a substantial risk of obstructing, impeding or prejudicing seriously the due administration of justice; or is in the nature of a running Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 63 commentary or debate, or records the paper's own findings conjectures, reflection or comments on issues, sub judice and which may amount to abrogation to the newspaper the functions of the court; or regarding the personal character of the accused standing trial on a charge of committing a crime. [Ref: Part A - 12 (a) (i)] ➢ Newspaper shall not as a matter of caution, publish or comment on evidence collected as a result of investigative journalism, when, after the accused is arrested and charged, the court becomes seized of the case: Nor should they reveal, comment upon or evaluate a confession allegedly made by the accused. [Ref: Part A - 12 (a) (ii)] ➢ Before publishing a news item about court proceedings, it will be appropriate for the correspondent and editor to ascertain its genuineness and, correctness and authenticity from the records so that the concerned person can be held guilty and accountable for furnishing incorrect facts or wrong information about the court proceedings. [Ref: Part A - 12 (b) (i)] ➢ When any factual error or mistake is detected or confirmed, the newspaper should suomoto publish the correction promptly with due prominence and with apology or expression of regrets in a case of serious lapse. [Ref: Part A - 13] Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 64 (64) As per Part A 26 of the guidelines issued by the Press Council of India dealing with the Norms of Investigative Journalism, imaginary facts, or ferreting out or conjecturing the nonexistent should be scrupulously avoided. Facts, facts and yet more facts are vital and they should be checked and crosschecked whenever possible until the moment the paper goes to Press. It specifically provides that The newspaper must adopt strict standards of fairness and accuracy of facts. Findings should be presented in an objective manner, without exaggerating or distorting, that would stand up in a court of law, if necessary. It further provides that the reporter must not approach the matter or the issue under investigation, in a manner as though he were the prosecutor or counsel for the prosecution. The reporter's approach should be fair, accurate and balanced. All facts properly checked up, both for and against the core issues, should be distinctly and separately stated, free from any onesided inferences or unfair comments. The tone and tenor of the report and its language should be sober, decent and dignified, and not needlessly offensive, barbed, derisive or castigatory, particularly while commenting on the version of the person whose alleged activity or misconduct is being investigated. Nor should the investigative reporter conduct the proceedings and pronounce his verdict of guilt or Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 65 innocence against the person whose alleged criminal acts and conduct were investigated, in a manner as if he were a court trying the accused. (65) Similarly, in the guidelines issued by Press Council of India (Part 41A) dealing with trial by Media, it has been observed that the media and judiciary are two vital pillars of democracy and natural allies, one compliments the other towards the goal of a successful democracy. Measures which are necessary for due process of law need to take precedence over freedom of speech. In a conflict between fair trial and freedom of speech, fair trial has to necessarily prevail because any compromise of fair trial for an accused will cause immense harm and defeat justice delivery system and hence it requires that mediapersons should be duly trained and imparted basic knowledge about functioning of courts and processes of law. It also provides that an accused is entitled to the privilege of presumption of being innocent till guilt is pronounced by the Court [Ref: Part A - 41 (A) (i)]. It further provides that the media reports should not induce the general public to believe in the complicity of the person indicted as such kind of action brings undue pressure on the course of fair investigation by the police. [Ref: Part A - 41 (A) (ii)]. In relation to Victim, Witnesses, Suspects and accused, the guidelines provides that they should not be given excessive publicity as its amounts to invasion of their privacy rights [Ref: Part A - 41 (A) (vi)] and also that the suspect's picture should not be shown as it may create a Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 66 problem during 'identification parades' conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure for identifying the accused [Ref: Part A - 41 (A)
(viii)]. These guidelines specifically provides that the media is not expected to conduct its own parallel trial or foretell the decision putting undue pressure on the judge, the jury or the witnesses or prejudice a party to the proceedings [Ref: Part A - 41 (A) (ix)].
(66) Also, when it comes to Norms for Photo Journalism, these guidelines provide that since a picture or visual presentation of news creates a stronger and more lasting impression on the readers and viewers than mere words, photojournalists and other visual news producers have to be a lot more responsible and careful in the discharge of their duties. They must, therefore, ensure that in keeping with the high standards of journalism, their presentations are always in public interest, fair, accurate, unbiased, sober and decent.
Observations & Discussion on the facts of the case:
(67) 'Journalism', the concrete form of this expression has grown in power over a period of time. The fundamental objective of journalism is to serve the people with news, views, comments and information on matters of public interest in a fair, accurate, unbaised and decent manner and language. The media today does not remain satisfied as the Fourth Estate and has assumed the foremost importance in society and governance. Such is the influence of media that it can make or unmake any individual, Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 67 institution or any thought. So all pervasive and allpowerful is today its impact on the society. With so much power and strength, the media cannot loose sight of its privileges, duties and obligations. However, to enjoy these privileges, to this end, media is mandated to follow certain ethics in collecting and disseminating the information viz., ensuring authenticity of the news, use of restrained and socially acceptable language for ensuring objectivity and fairness in reporting and keeping in mind its cascading effect on the society and on the individuals and institutions concerned.
(68) These words of Hon'ble Justice G.N. Ray perfectly encapsulate the power of the media not since the present day but all the way back to before independence as well. Back then it served as a fire which united us all as a countrymen in our fight to seek independence and institute a democratic rule. That role hasn't greatly differed in the present day and age, while new channels of media may have emerged, it's role as a guardian/ watchdog for Democracy continues.
(69) It is in exercise of such role only that the defendants fundamental right of Article 19 is being brought into question by the plaintiff's suit. The question then lies whether such a claim is a legible. To answer which I revert to Justice Ray's statement that the media having the power to "make or unmake and individual". It is this very statement which lies at the heart of three matters in question.
(70) As stated in the facts earlier the plaintiff's were heading the police party that carried out indiscriminate shooting over a car with 3 Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 68 civilians in case of mistaken identity, under the assumption of the victims being noted criminals from Aligarh. Hence forth which criminal cases were instituted against all the concerned officers and the plaintiff has been held guilty and accordingly been convicted.
(71) The defendants about ten to eleven months from the said incident produced and broadcasted a docudrama under the dais of the title 'India's Most Wanted' on 17.03.1998. According to the plaintiffs they made repeated attempts to prevent the show from being aired with requests being conveyed by the father of lead plaintiff Sh. Anil Kumar. Their concerns lay in the timing of the broadcast of the show, which was broadcasted on a date (17.03.1998 and 24.03.1998), their argument being that while the matter was subjudice, depiction of such content was prejudiced to their interests while the proceedings ensued as it would lead to the media serving as the jury, judge and executioner without giving them an honest opportunity to defend oneself against the charges levied.
(72) Furthermore as it has been stated by the plaintiff, the content in the program portrayed them as blood thirsty, cold blooded killers which was done by twisting and distorting the events in order to create a sensation, resulting in them suffering mental agony, loss of reputation etc. as such they were entitled to claim damages/ compensation on account of defamation, loss of reputation etc. This humiliation was not limited to themselves but to their family, friends and Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 69 close associates as well. It is on these aspects that we intend to delve into the 3 matters at hand before this court.
(73) Journalism is a profession that serves, by its virtue it enjoys the privilege to question others. This empowered state provides them with the right to collect information from primary authentic sources. Matters which are of importance to the society and reporting the same in a pristine, unbiased manner to the public at larger with an intent to inform and not harm or create public sensation. In the pursuance of the said task, if they encounter any interference from the state , the state or any sector/ individual that would merely serve as encroachment on the discharge of their duties towards the society.
(74) I shall examining all these minuscule yet pivotal aspects while contesting with the very first issue in question to assess whether the defendants are liable for any damage caused to the reputation of the plaintiff via producing / making of the docudrama "India's Most Wanted".
(75) The genre of Docudrama is indicative of documentary style approach of filmmaking to a real life event with a certain amount of creative license being accorded to the makers of the said creative property.
The said article in question i.e. episodes of the program India's Most Wanted are surmised as a documentary drama. Thus a logical yet superficial deduction would be that the acts of the defendants by producing such a show are completely merited and on this basis the pleading of the plaintiff would be dismissed.
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 70 (76) However it is essential to dig deeper into the circumstances at hand. By representation of the Connaught Place Shootout event, the makers of the show were well aware of the attention that their show would grab along, due to the time lapse between the screening and the above occurrence. Furthermore they were equally well aware of the (in part due to protestations by the plaintiffs 'family) the impact of the illtimed broadcast of such a show could have on the criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs.
(77) Yet they chose to ignore the above concerns of the plaintiff and went forward to produce the said show. Moreover their error did not stop here, the depiction of incidents in the show was not entirely in accordance with the series of events as enumerated in the charge sheet filed in Suit being No.10(s)/1997. An aspect which can be ascertained from the testimony of the plaintiffs , whereby they have been shown to be cold blooded killers who murdered two innocents without reason and caution. Aspects such a crashing their car into the victims car as well as shooting at them at point blank range emerge as the contentious points. These aspects as shown in the docudrama were clearly in contradiction to the events as they emerged during the investigations and as mentioned in the chargesheet and later proved in the Trial Court and also upheld by the Delhi High Court in the appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP. There was a clear cut distortion when ACP S. S. Rathi (plaintiff in case bearing CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyaveer Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors.') was Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 71 shown to be hitting the car of the victims and thereafter dragging the victims out of the car and kicking the dead body. This was a clean attempt to sensitize the event which showed this decorated officer of Delhi Police in poor light. Right from the Trial Court to Hon'ble Supreme Court it was duly accepted at all forums that the case was of Mistaken Identity. What more the wanted criminal Yasin himself appeared as PW70 and confirmed that he was using mobile No. 9810071368 and was to meet Hafiz at Mother Dairy Patparganj between 1:00 PM to 1:30 PM and he did come in a Blue Coloured Maruti Car with a U.P. number to Mather Dairy Patparganj from where they went back. The entire information received by Inspector Anil Kumar from his source was correct except for the deadly/ fatal coincident that even the victim businessmen from Punjab came in a blue Maruti Car with U.P. number plate at the same time at Mother Dairy Patparganj, the deceased Jagjit resembled the criminal Yasin who the Delhi Police officers had seen long back. It was a clear case of Mistaken Identity. The decorated officers suffered the legal consequences of this deadly mistake but condemn them forever and to shake the credibility of the entire police force is something which is clearly impermissible. This telecast brought to them a lifetime of shame and humiliation and aspect which as stated above deeply affected their family and friends as well. As reflected from the affidavit (Ex.PW2/A) filed by father of the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Ram Pal Singh Rana (PW2), post the broadcast of this episode people called him and other members of the family to convey their disgust at the manner in which their Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 72 brother carried out the indiscriminate killings. (78) The emotional trauma that was caused to all parties concerned is clearly encapsulated by Ram Pal Singh Rana's testimony. In a society like ours where family ties are very closely knit, a scenario such as this would lead to immense social flouting for all and any even remotely associated parties to the concerned individual/individuals. It is in light of this that one needs to opine that when acts such as the aforementioned are carried out, it is not only a gross violation of the genre qualifications of a program but rather goes against the tenets of journalistic integrity be it nationally or internationally.
(79) Henry Giroux, an American Scholar and cultural critic once stated that "...... The mainstream media spins stories that are largely racist, violent, and irresponsible stories that celebrate power and demonize victims, all the while camouflaging its pedagogical influence under the cheap veneer of entertainment.....". This statement perfectly encapsulates what has ensued in these matters concerned. The actions of all the defendants concerned be it Zee TV or Shohaib IIyasi are in gross violations of the journalistic standards.
(80) In the Press Council Report on the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, Edition 2010, it's clearly elucidated in Part A of the report as to what are the basic ethical standards expected of journalists. Point 1, 2, 3 of Part A contend with issues of Accuracy and fairness, Prepublication verification and Caution against defamatory writings respectively. The acts Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 73 of the defendants are in complete violation of these set recommendations for all the acts that they engaged in were poignant examples of not Journalism instead Sensationalism. Their journalistic endeavors were not backed by credible sources nor did they take requisite steps to distance themselves via the medium of disclaimers from unwarranted views which they have added in their Docu drama. The above statement alludes to the views of one of the victims (Pradeep Goyal) brother of the Connaught Place Shootout, one Sh. Dinesh Goyal whereby he states that the plaintiffs carried out the shootout for an out of turn promotion. An aspect which wasn't proven back then and has been not been proven in the years since, thus making his comments mere conjecture. This was an aspect which the defendants should have certainly looked into and since they wished to broadcast the same, a disclaimer distancing the channel, the program and all concerned parties from these views should have been issued. Strangely, the examination of the entire episode shows that no disclaimer whatsoever has been issued either before, during or even after the programme with regard to the correctness of the contents of the same. (81) Similar ideals have been enshrined in the international arena as well with The Swaziland National Association of Journalists Code Of Ethics (Relevant articles Art. 1(3), 5,9,12 and 19.5). Additional international covenants such as the UNESCO Declaration on Fundamental Principles concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 74 and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid, and Incitement to War are enshrined on similar principles. However the problem lies herein that these are mere recommendations with mere persuasive and not binding authority in regard to our cases. It is the reliance on the mere persuasive nature of such legislative covenants that entities like Defendant No. 4 i.e. Shohaib IIyasi and channels such as Zee TV, flout these recommendations with reckless abandon due to no fear of any penal provisions being imposed on their person.
(82) While the defendants may plead for exercise of their Fundamental Right Article 19 rule 1(a) of the Constitution of India, which is Right to Freedom Of Speech and Expression. However, one has to rationalize the reason behind recommendation as stated above. The idea is that the media too needs policing and a mere exercise of fundamental rights to carry out fraudulent acts for commercial gains at the cost of another person's reputation is not to be permitted. Instead on closer examination the actions of the Defendants have instead lead to violation of the Right to life and liberty i.e. Article 21 of the Constitution of India of all the plaintiffs and their families. This violation has ensued in part of the humiliation that the concerned parties have had to endure every day since the broadcast of the show as evident by the testimony of the father of plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana, who has had to endure a lot of backlash in wake of this incident and wrongly so.
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 75 (83) As established in the case of Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1963 SC 1295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expanded the concept of right to life as more than mere animal existence. This right was further expanded in cases such as Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry reported in 1989 AIR 714 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern of Governance Trust reported in AIR 1989 SC 714 which established reputation as an essential element of personal security which is protected by the constitution alongside the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
(84) The aforementioned is one aspect where the judiciary has shown increasing amount of creativity over the years in its interpretation. This court only seeks a furtherance of the preceding judgments by pointing out the violation of the said right through the actions of the defendants. Journalistic norms also lay down aspects such as partial disclosure of sensitive information, with the exception being that's it done in public interest. However the case at hand provides no such exception as the plaintiffs were not absconding criminals instead were law abiding officers who had committed a crime by pure mistake and were lawful custody to contend with the same. The defendants have however taken no such care to protect their identities instead have gone two steps further by not only depicting fraudulent and unnecessarily graphic construction of the actual events but also naming and showing photographs of the plaintiffs, along with hiring lookalike actor for dramatic effect. It's actions such as these Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 76 which have had a permanently debilitating impact on the reputations of the plaintiffs and their families.
(85) To the credit of the defendants they have argued that the information in the nature surrounding the plaintiffs names, photographs were already widely circulated in the print media and their production was a mere continuation of the same. Thus posing the question as to why only should they be penalized and not others. The answer to which lies in the fact that unlike other publications there wasn't any misappropriation or distortation of the content as it was done by the defendants in this case. The plaintiff S.S. Rathi in his crossexamination has specifically deposed that the others did not twist, distort and sensitize the way the defendants did but only put forth the facts as they emerged during investigations and in the chargesheet. The defendants i.e. team of India's Most Wanted on the contrary issued self proclamation and claimed themselves to be as an agency which assists in Crime Prevention. From where do they derive these powers and how they can pronounce the guilt of the persons even before the trial in the case has commenced. (86) Furthermore it is essential to examine the fact that Television as a medium was growing tremendously at the time of the broadcast that is the late 1990's . In tune of the idea of broadcasting information which is not only fraudulent and exaggerated to a certain extent, to millions of households. As well as being well aware of the ramifications it can have is not just a mere legal violation but also humanitarian one as well. Rather I Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 77 would go as far to say that it serves as an underhanded attempt to subvert the legal proceedings against the plaintiff in their criminal matter. Thereby it wouldn't be an extension to state that it serves as an attempt to deprive them of their constitutional Right to Equality before Law i.e. Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(87) The objective behind the aforementioned discussion was to elucidate the relationship between the media and the legal realm. As the 4th Estate, the media is supposed to function in consonance with the other organs of the government to provide and promote for a system of checks and balances for the democratic structure to appropriately function. However too often in our nation's legal history have we seen an adverse impact of the relationship between legal proceedings and media. Case in point being the infamous K. M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1962 AIR 605 case. What is essential to note in this case is the media campaign launched by Blitz magazine upholding the honorable conduct of the accused i.e. K.M. Nanavati in a bid to exonerate him of his crime. While the judiciary ultimately did not fall prey to such tactics (although the jury voted in favor of his release), the executive ultimately buckled and granted judicial pardon to the accused. (88) In the case at hand, the flow of events as mentioned in the above case are to the contrary. However that too is against the principles of law in our country as the defendants have no grounds to proclaim the accused as "guilty", "criminals" before the person/persons in question have Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 78 been deemed the same before the designated Court. To defend their activities, the defendants have even portrayed oneself as an agency which assists law enforcement agencies to catch criminals, however promotion of such kind of unregulated vigilantes is bound to cause more harm than good. Neither the police nor any governmental or statutory body recognizes their presence and with good reason as one can conclude in wake of the events of this case.
(89) Contestations regarding the plaintiffs being deemed as "India's Most Wanted", appear to be inaccurate on the basis of the video graphic evidence furnished. Not every individual shown as a part of the program is denoted as India's most wanted fugitive, case in point being of the report regarding the missing Dutch National Timmer. However in light of the plaintiffs statement regarding the evidence being doctored, this aspect is subject to change in case of emergence of any new incriminating evidence. (90) Lastly, on the aspect of the chief piece of incriminating evidence as submitted before the court, i.e. the two videos the program "
India's Most Wanted". The plaintiffs upon the court ordained examination of the set evidence have repeatedly claimed for it to be doctored and different from the original broadcast on the date of 17.01.1998. I too have observed inconsistencies in the video graphic evidence with certain sections very clearly omitted by the defendants, resulting in black blots appearing arbitrarily on the screen.Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 79
(91) Additionally there are certain legal grounds on which the defendants have faltered. Firstly, that Sub section (4) of 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lists down nontechnical qualifications conditions as required to ascertain the authenticity of the electronic evidence. In accordance with this provision it is required for a certificate being produced by a senior person who was responsible for the computer on which the electronic record in question was created or stored. This certificate must uniquely identify the original electronic record, describe the manner of its creation, describe the device that created it, and certify compliance with the technological conditions of subsection (2) of section 65B. The Supreme Court's judgment on the Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC180 which overruled the previous Supreme Court judgment i.e. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru reported in (2005) 11 SCC 600 which set an important basis for the requirement of Section 65 B for admissibility of evidence.
Which the defendants have clearly not provided for alluding to them and hence the adverse inference against the defendants for the same. I further note that during the hearing of this matter before the High Court, the defendants furnished the video graphic evidence only for them to take it back while they were supposed to deposit it to the court. While they only furnished the video graphic evidence after repeated notifications were sent to the defendants about the same. Upon reading of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in accordance with the above information , Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 80 which states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Here ardent concealment of information for a protracted period of time along with the non furnishing of required document/ certificate puts forward the burden of proof on the defendants. A further reading of Section 114 of the Evidence Act which contends with the Court presuming the existence of certain facts ultimately leads me to reach the conclusion that not only has the video graphic evidence has been doctored, a fact which is reflected by the technical difficulties/ blots which appear on viewing the Video (something which can be confirmed by a videographer expert) and the non provision of the required certificate only provide for further basis against the defendants.
(92) On examination of evidence of Ashok Singh Rana (PW1) and his father Ram Pal Singh Rana (PW2), one can clearly see the decorated tenure of the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana as an officer of the Delhi Police. While the defendants are not required to glorify the plaintiff as the intent behind the docudrama was not a glorifying biopic of the concerned officer, merely reporting a specific incident in question. But on perusing through the all the commendations and awards as received by plaintiff, it is clear that these men were highly decorated officers of the police and not mere cronies/ hardened criminals. Nevertheless the acts as carried out warrant punishment as the blood of innocents was spilt albeit 'mistakenly' Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 81 and of present there is no such law protecting law enforcement agencies in case of wrongdoing.
(93) Thus this farcical media campaign that was initiated by the actions of the defendants, begs forward the question Have these officers not faced enough?. As I stated above these were highly decorated officers of the police force who time and again would put their lives on the line to protect the innocent citizens of their country. Furthermore, in accordance with the criminal proceedings the plaintiff was accorded Life imprisonment. This leads me to the conclusion that the actions of the defendants have not only lead to violation of their fundamental rights but also resulting in unequal detriment suffered upon the plaintiffs. Contractual law pervades the theory of Unjust Enrichment whereby one person is unjustly or by chance is enriched at the expense of another. Extrapolating this treatise to our case, the plaintiffs have already received their due punishment as ordained by the criminal proceedings, but is it necessary for their reputation to be further maligned by misappropriating facts merely because they committed a crime.
(94) In wake of the ever increasing power of the media, it's time for an important question to be raised, as to whether the Indian parliament should introduce legislations providing for qualified and/or privileged protection to law enforcement agencies and personnel. Taking a cue from the United states of America or United Kingdom who have legislations such as the Law Enforcements Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR or Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 82 LEOBoR) in the U.S.A or the Health and Safety at Work etc, Act. 1974 and guidelines as mentioned in Operation Kratos in the United Kingdom. The former brought about in wake of the case of Garrity Vs. New Jersey, reported in 385 U.S. 493(1967) providing for an ideologue for Qualified immunity ( protection granted upon meeting of certain conditions Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388) and privileged immunity (absolute protection) to federal agents. The latter legislation is from the U.K. and was used moreover as a proxy mechanism for police to evade the legislation in the case of infamous killing of Jean Charles De Menezes by the London Police in 2005. This legislation which is more of a general set of guidelines for various public functions was employed to provide compensation to the aggrieved party in this case. However, this is a debate which needs to be examined with caution seeing the nature of law enforcement agencies and the power they exercise rightly or wrongly so. Nevertheless, in wake of continued acts like in the case at hand it is certainly an aspect worth consideration particulalry when the Apex Court of our Country in a recent case while dealing with the provisions of The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1990 and the action taken by the accused officers in good faith in case of a mistaken identity had observed that "......... A sudden decision to do something under authority or the purported exercise of such authority may not necessarily be predetermined except for the purpose for which the official proceeds to accomplish. For example, while conducting Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 83 a raid an official may not have the apprehension of being attacked but while performing his official duty he has to face such a situation at the hands of criminals and unscrupulous persons. The official may in his defence perform a duty which can be on account of some miscalculation or wrong information but such a duty cannot be labelled as an act in bad faith unless it is demonstrated by positive material in particular that the act was tainted by personal motives and was not connected with the discharge of any official duty. Thus, an act which may appear to be wrong or a decision which may appear to be incorrect is not necessarily a malicious act or decision. The presumption of good faith therefore can be dislodged only by cogent and clinching material and so long as such a conclusion is not drawn, a duty in good faith should be presumed to have been done or purported to have been done in exercise of the powers conferred under the statute......". The Hon'ble Court further observed that ".......... It is in the aforesaid background that we wish to record that the protection and immunity granted to an official particularly in provisions of the Act 1990 or like Acts has to be widely construed in order to assess the act complained of. This would also include the assessment of cases like mistaken identities or an act performed on the basis of a genuine suspicion. We are therefore of the view that such immunity clauses have to be interpreted with wide discretionary powers to the sanctioning authority in order to uphold the official discharge of duties in good faith and a Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 84 sanction therefore has to be issued only on the basis of a sound objective assessment and not otherwise......". [Ref.: General Officer Commanding Rashtriya Rifles Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2012 (6) SCC 228].
(95) It is, therefore, accepted that there can be instances when even the most dedicated and sincere officer may in good faith commit an error which is based upon miscalculated or wrong information. The plaintiff not enjoying the immunity which is available to the officer under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1990 or to their contemporaries in other jurisdiction of the world, has thus been tried and punished for the same but to condemn the families and also the Police Institution is impermissible. (96) Finally, I will now progress to the issue of grant of damages by way of Private Law Remedy and in this regard the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behra Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1993 (2) SCC 746 the Hon'ble Apex Court are most relevant and I quote, as under:
"17..... 'a claim in public law for compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by restoring to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental rights is 'distinct form, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 85 sovereign immunity being applicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention mode by the State of its servants in the purported exercise of their powers and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by resource to Articles 32 and 266 of the Constitution....."
(97) In the said case, Hon'ble Justice Dr. A.S. Anand (as his Lordship then was) in his concurring opinion expressed that:
"34........ The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting 'compensation' in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 86 citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public way for the wrongdoer due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of exemplary damages, awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/ and prosecute the offender under the penal law......"
(98) Similarly in the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2012 (8) SCC 1 while dealing with the aspect of compensation for purposes of mental harassment, it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra that compensation for mental/ psychological torture and harassment is required to be given because uch psychologial harassment severely affects a man's life and thereby denying the freedom under Article 21 of the Constitition of India.
(99) In this matter, it is clear that under the auspices of proclaiming oneself to be an agency aimed at working towards public welfare and good faith , the defendants have made a mockery of the plaintiffs reputations indiscriminately. Curiously the expression Good Faith as defined in the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 87 Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires the exercise of due care and caution, an aspect which is visibly absent. Is it not then the courts responsibility to interpret the aforementioned observations and extrapolate and apply it in the case of private entities as well. The objective here is not just mere compensation being accorded, for the damage inflicted is not a mere commercial wrong. Instead there has been a violation of the plaintiffs Right to life and Personal liberty by irrevocably tarnishing their reputation. This case is not to serve as a mere basis for attaining compensation for damages instead it needs to serve as an ideologue for restraints to be imposed on the media or otherwise some self restraint to be shown by the various channels of media itself.
(100) In a recent case where a documentary on 'India's Daughter' by Leslee Udwin was banned by the government. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court headed by Honn'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durez Ahmed refused to lift the ban as his Hon'ble Lordship felt that the broadcast of 'India's Daughter' could influence the Judicial Process and observe that "..... Judges are not Superheros, they are not from outer space.... They can get subconsciously pressured by emotional Indian trial...". Black Friday, a film on 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai was stopped by the Court in 2005 as some of the accused felt that the film would prejudice their trial but once the trial court gave its verdict, the Hon'ble Supreme Court lifted the ban. The law is very clear. After viewing the broadcast the Court feels that the comments on the merits of the case or upon the character of the accused Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 88 are not proper or that while the matter was subjudice or while presentation the comments on the merits of the case and there was substantial risk and prejudice caused to the accused on account of telecasting of the episode again which may have an adverse impact on the trial. In the present case the docudrama "India's Most Wanted" has been telecasted at the time when the trial had commenced. The incident in question had taken place on 31.03.1997, Charge Sheet in the present case had been filed before the competent court and while the trial was at initial stages and the accused (plaintiff in the present case) were in judicial custody the docudrama 'India's Most Wanted' had been aired despite several protests by the plaintiff and his family members who have appeared before the Court to prove this aspect.
(101) The only defence of the defendant Sohaib Ilyasi while denying the averments of the plaintiff is that he was not the Anchor of the programme which programme had been in fact anchored by Ms. Anju Ilyasi his deceased wife. However, I may observe that his argument falls flat on the sole ground that he was the Producer, Director and also the Script Writer as evident from the docudrama now placed on record by the defendants, to which he does not deny.
(102) I may observe that the right to Privacy is very crucial in our society and cases such as R. Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1993 AIR 264 helped lay down what is private and public information. This distinction usually forms the backbone of what can be considered as Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 89 defamatory or not. Justification of Truth is not enough to protect one from an action initiated against them from defamation. If the publication has been done with reckless disregard for the truth of with malice then a publication can still be held defamatory.
(103) As per the journalistic norms when any factual error or mistake is detected, it is necessary for the publisher to suomoto publish the correction promptly with due prominence and with apology or expression of regrets. In the present case despite having been put to a notice and informed about the factual error in the depiction of the comments which were contrary to the contents of the charge sheet and the sequence of events as reconstructed by the Trial Court (upheld by the Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court) no regret has even been offered by anybody including the Broadcaster, Editor or Script Writer. (104) Hence, in this background, in so far as the defendant M/s. Zee Television Ltd. is concerned, they are the Broadcasters whose liability has been specifically fixed under the Cable Television Regulations Act 1995 as prescribed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and the Cable TV Network Rules 1994 which makes the Broadcaster liable in case of any contents which are defamatory, false or half truth and also when the contents criticizes, maligns or slanders any person or group and in case of defamatory deliberate half truths. The onus of proving that the contents of the docudrama was based upon true facts and consists of fair comments on matters of public importance and the Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 90 entire chain of events were reconstructed and shown in graphic details to bring to light certain true facts not known to the general public at large and not to jeopardize the right of the plaintiff in the trial, was upon the defendants, which they have not been able to prove and establish. Rather on the contrary, as discussed herein above, it is the plaintiff who has proved that the manner in which the said docudrama was dramatized and aired, was maligned, its contents were defamatory and also based upon distorted and twisted facts showing the plaintiff in poor light. No efforts were made to screen the identity of the plaintiff, rather his photographs were promptly displayed on many occasions during the telecast. The docudrama was telecasted when the matter was subjudice. Specific comments of the brother of the deceased were telecasted and the plaintiff was pronounced guilty even before the verdict of the Ld. Trial Court so much so that at one place the brother of the victim was asked to suggest the punishment which should be given to the plaintiff upon which he remarked that it should be such that it chill down the spine of any person under similar circumstances (.... usko sochne se pehle uske roongte khade ho jayen ki agar mai aisa karunga to mere liye bhi koi kanoon hai....). All this is clear violations of not only the Press Council of India Guidelines but also the Statutory Law (i.e. Cable Television Network Regulations Act 1995, Cinematograph Act, Law relating to defamation) and of the Fundamental Rights of the plaintiff as warranted under the Constitution of India).
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 91 (105) It has been established that the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana is a decorated police officer and has been awarded as many as Three Commendation Certificates which are Mark A to Mark C. Not only the plaintiff but his entire family has suffered on account of vicious campaign against him relating to this unfortunate incident which, as discussed herein above, was admittedly a case of mistaken identity (as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court). The plaintiff has given his sweat and blood to the Institution, Society and Country and cannot be condemned for one unfortunate mistake for which he has already been sentenced to Life Imprisonment. The decorated police officer has suffered the legal consequences of this deadly mistake but condemn him and his family forever and to shake the credibility of the entire police force is something which is clearly impermissible. This condemnation so incorporated in the docudrama, when one of the public person has publicly expressed his views that the police can arrest them at any point of time under the pretext of there not carrying any documents in the car, plant revolver or drugs upon them or for other any other reasons (Aise kal ko humko bhi utha kar band kar denge ke apki gaadi me yeh nahin hai... apne usko mara hai ya kuch bhi kar diya hai... Aam aadmi ki kya surakha hai.... Kuch bhi nahi hai, Hum toh unke hathon me kathputliyon ki tarah ghoom rahe hain... Jab marzi band kar deh humare hath me revolver den den. Drug humari jeb me dal denge to hum to ho gye. We are not happy at all....) has been repeatedly telecasted as a promo to the programme. All this tends to shake Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 92 public confidence in the Institution of the Country (i.e. the Police) and these general observations and malicious propaganda should have been avoided.
(106) Therefore, any person who suffers mental torture in the hands of others, is required to be compensated which is a way of making the mental amends for wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. This compensation is in the nature of damages awarded against the wrongdoer for breach of public law and duty, in a case based upon torts under private law. What the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana has exercised before this Court, is a private law remedy in torts and in order to do justice, for all the humiliation and mental torture suffered by the plaintiff and his family and I feel that given the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs) would be an adequate compensation for the plaintiff and would meet the ends of justice.
(107) Further, in so far as the relief of Injunction is concerned, the defendants no longer being in possession of the original micro cassette of the episode which according to them was destroyed, so much so, as to what was produced in the Court was not the complete copy, the said relief has become infructuous as on date.
(108) In so far as the defendant no.2 Arun Srivastava is concerned, the plaintiff has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to confirm Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 93 and prove his liability and hence, I hold that the plaintiff has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against him. (109) Both the issues are hereby decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief:
(110) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hereby hold that the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana is entitled to the compensation/ damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs only) from the defendant M/s. Zee Television Ltd. the Broadcaster and the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi the Producer, Director & Script Writer in equal proportions.
In so far as the defendant no.2 Arun Srivastava is concerned, he has been made a defendant in his personal capacity but no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to fix his liability and hence, I hold that the plaintiff has not been able to prove and substantiate the claims against the defendant no. 2 Arun Srivastava and hence no damages can be claimed from him in his personal capacity.
(111) In so far as the relief of Injunction is concerned, the defendants no longer being in possession of the original micro cassette of the episode which according to them was destroyed, so much so, as to what was produced in the Court was not the complete copy, the said relief has become infructuous as on date.
Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 94 FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(112) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hereby hold that the plaintiff Ashok Singh Rana is entitled to the compensation/ damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs (Rupees Five Lacs only) from the defendant M/s. Zee Television Ltd. and the defendant no.4 Sohaib Ilyasi in equal proportion. However, the plaintiff has not been able to prove and substantiate the claims against the defendant no.2 Arun Srivastava and hence no damages can be claimed from him in his personal capacity.
(113) In so far as the relief of Injunction is concerned, the defendants no longer being in possession of the original micro cassette of the episode which according to them was destroyed, so much so, as to what was produced in the Court was not the complete copy, the said relief has become infructuous as on date.
(114) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby Decreed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
(115) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 23.01.2016 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 95 Ashok Singh Rana Vs. Zee TV & Ors. CS No. 325/2013 23.01.2016 Present: Sh. Suraj Rathi Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Namrita Kochar Advocate for the defendants no.1 to 3.
Sh. M. Alam Advocate for the defendant no.4.
I have observed that no formal issues have been framed in the present case. Initially the suits were filed before the Delhi High Court and in the case under the title 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors.' vide order dated 19.03.2001 Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri directed the listing of all the three suits together. Further, vide order dated 27.07.2006 passed in case bearing CS No. 323/2013 under the title 'Inspector Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' all the three cases i.e, suit bearing CS No. 324/2013 under the title 'Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. Zee TV & Ors', suit bearing CS No. 323/2013 under the title 'Anil Kumar Vs. M/s. I Sky B & Ors.' and suit bearing CS No. 325/2013 under the title 'Ashok Singh Rana Vs. Zee TV & Ors.' have been consolidated by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court since the controversy in all the three cases is almost same. Therefore, the issues already framed in the said suits are adopted in the present case.
Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 23.01.2016 Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 96 4:00 PM Present: Sh. Suraj Rathi Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Namrita Kochar Advocate for the defendants no.1 to 3. Sh. M. Alam Advocate for the defendant no.4.
Vide my separate detail order dictated and announced in the open court, but not yet typed, the suit of the plaintiff is Decreed. Parties to bear their own costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 23.01.2016 Ashok Singh Rana Vs. M/s. Zee Television & Ors., CS No. 325/2013 Page No. 97