Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Salena Dandasi S/O. Late Kayanna vs Gajjala Malla Reddy And T. Venkataram ... on 23 July, 2007
JUDGMENT P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 11/1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, had preferred this appeal. The respondents- defendants are Editor - Andhra Bhumi and the Publisher - Andhra Bhumi, Visakhapatnam. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S. No. 11/87 aforesaid.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation or damages with subsequent interest at 6% per annum and for costs of the suit. The claim made by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 and marked Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.4 and Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that inasmuch as it was clearly established that there is no personal malice between the parties and inasmuch as the publication was made in good faith, the plaintiff is not entitled to the claim and accordingly dismissed the suit without costs. Hence, the appeal.
3. Contentions of Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy : Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing appellant-plaintiff had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the approach of the trial Court is totally erroneous. The Counsel also would maintain that even as per the evidence of D.W. 1, there was no proper verification of the facts before proceeding with the publication and at least the same had not been verified by putting the plaintiff, a responsible Advocate, on notice. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the facts would go to show that there was no arrest as on the date of the publication and also further the facts would go to show that the publication made that Harizan woman had been raped also is a false statement. Definitely, there was no diligence on the part of the respondents-defendants in verification of facts and imputation of a fact without verification and publication thereof cannot be a pardonable wrong. The Counsel also pointed out to the responsible journalism and the duties and the obligations on the part of the Publisher and the Editor of a newspaper. The Counsel also maintained that there can be malice in Law though not malice in fact. The learned Counsel also pointed out certain portions of Ex. A.4 - the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C. No. 47/86 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances it is clear that it is a case where the respondents negligently and recklessly without proper verification of the facts made serious defamatory allegations as against a responsible Advocate and hence the findings recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff had not sustained any loss also cannot be sustained since these serious allegations may affect his reputation in the society. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of P.W. 1 and also D.W. 1 and further placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.
4. Contentions of Sri Prabhakar Reddy : Sri Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing respondents would maintain that absolutely there is no malice on the part of the respondents and even otherwise no rejoinder was made when the publication was made, the same was done in the public interest and only in good faith. The Counsel also would maintain that the fact that the incident was reported to the police is not in serious controversy and in the light of Ex. B.1 - Report, Ex. B.2 - Pamphlet published by B. Ammayamma, Ex. B.3 - Press Note given by Sub-Inspector of Police, and also in the light of the evidence of D.W. 1, it cannot be said that without any basis, the publication was made. The mentioning in relation to the arrest or specifying the affected victim as Harijan lady, these facts also were mentioned on verification and on the available material and at any rate, absolutely there being no malice on the part of the Editor and Publisher, they cannot be made liable for either compensation or damages. The learned Counsel also pointed out that recording of acquittal by a Criminal Court, may be for several reasons, that by itself cannot be taken as a ground to arrive at a conclusion that the very incident reported to police is totally false. The Counsel also pointed out to the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 in this regard and further placed strong reliance on certain decisions.
5. Heard the Counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court.
6. Pleadings of the parties:
Averments made in the plaint : The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint as hereunder:
The plaintiff passed M.A. (History) from Andhra University in 1972. He passed LL.B., from Berhampur University in Orissa in 1975. He practiced as an Advocate at Srikakulam for one year in 1976. He shifted to Pathapatnam in the year 1977, set up his practice there in that year. He has been practicing at Pathapatnam from the year 1977. He has substantial properties at Vasundhara.
The plaintiff is a man of status. He earned good name as an Advocate. He acquired good practice within a short time after he set up his practice at Pathapatnam. He has large circle of friends and relatives in Srikakulam District. He is held in high esteem in the public.
The first defendant is an Editor and the second defendant is Printer and Publisher of Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily which is being published from Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada and Hyderabad. The said news paper has large circulation, news item was published in Andhra Bhoomi daily dated 11-2-1986.
The news which was read by other several persons including some of the clients of the plaintiff. The news item was brought to the notice of the plaintiff by some persons including Podilana Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Simmanna, Sarpanch of Vasundara; (2) Madugula Rama Rao, S/o. late Veeranna, Vice-President of Telugu Desam Party for Meliaputti Mandalam and (3) I. Prasada Rao, Head Master, Samithi Upper Primary School, Kesamla, who happened to read the news item. The news item contained the title "____________". The news item alleged that a Harijan woman who is a resident of Vasundhara village in Meliaputti Mandalam was caught in the from hands of the plaintiff. In that news item the plaintiff was described as "___________". Therein the words were used which convey the meaning that the victims said to be a Harijan was sexually assaulted against her will by the plaintiff. The words used in the news item conveyed the meaning to any reader of the item that the said woman was raped by the plaintiff. It is further alleged in that published news item that a crime was registered against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was asking some mal- propaganda against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Meliaputti, who registered the crime and that he was trying to get the complaint withdrawn by the victim through some mediators. In the news item, the plaintiff was referred at several placed in singular. He was called a shameless Advocate and he was also stated as an Advocate for injustice. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was threatening the victim with serious consequences if she does not withdraw her case. It was further alleged in that statement that the plaintiff was arrested by the Meliaputti Police. All the allegations in that news item are absolutely false. No Harijan woman gave any report at any time against the plaintiff. The reading of the news item shows that it was published maliciously without any bona fides without any good faith and without any verification of the facts, as it contains a several false statements. The plaintiff was never arrested by the police. The news item falsely stated that the plaintiff tried through mediators to compel the alleged victim to withdraw the case and also threatened her with grave consequences if she does not withdraw the case. The news item also implied by its statement that the plaintiff should have no place in this country. The manner of reporting of the news shows that it is not a mere report but a malicious statement designed to harm the reputation and assassinate the character of the plaintiff. The above news item published in Andhra Bhoomi in its daily dated 11-2-1986 has the tendency to harm to hatred and contempt of the public. The plaintiff was demnified by the statement and suffered loss of reputation.
The plaintiff is highly placed in the society and is pursuing a noble profession of Law. The plaintiff is a married person with three children. The statement contained in the impugned news item is most unfair to the plaintiff. It is lacking in bona fides and good faith. The statement contained in the news item are lebellious and the plaintiff suffered injury to his reputation. There was no basis for publishing the news item. It was evident that the news item was published without any just cause and the entire tenor of the publication shows that the publisher wanted to expose the plaintiff to contempt by the police. The plaintiff was described in the news item as "_________________". Several other defamatory and denouncing expressions of the news item caused immense harm to the reputation of the plaintiff both as a professional man practicing a noble profession of law and as a respectable person in the society.
The plaintiff issued a registered notice dated 22-3-1986 to the defendants calling upon them to furnish to the plaintiff the names of the persons who have the information for publishing against him such defamatory statements within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendants were informed that they will be held responsible for the said publication of they fail to give the sources of their information and that they will be proceeded against legally for defaming the plaintiff. The defendants sent a belated reply notice dated 30-4-1986 through their Advocate. In the reply notice the defendants not only expressed any regret for the defamatory news item published in their paper Andhra Bhoomi but they defended their action and thus added insult to injury.
It is false to state that the defendants have taken due care and gathered sufficient evidence and satisfied themselves that the news published in that daily touching the plaintiff was prima facie correct. The defendants failed to stated in the reply notice the source of their information and the evidence collected by them before putting news item. The name of the alleged victim was mentioned for the first time in the reply notice as Bachula Ammayamma and she was stated to have given the complaint to the police at Meliaputti. She is not a Harijan. She is a Kapu woman. As an Advocate, the plaintiff appeared against her in his capacity as an Advocate in five matters. It is false to state that there was boycott of the Court's mentioned in the reply notices by the Advocate's in connection with the arrest of the plaintiff. As already stated the plaintiff was never arrested. The boycott of the work in the Courts in Srikakulam District by the Advocates for the one day was the protest against the high-handed action of the Sub-Inspector of Meliaputti police on account of his grudge against the plaintiff who happened to file cases against the Head Constable and that Sub-Inspector of Meliaputti Police Station, on behalf of his clients. The assertlionin the reply notice that the boycott was on account of the arrest of the plaintiff itself shows the lack of bona fides and good faith and due verification by the defendants but persisted in affirming the false statement contained in the impugned lebellious publication in their daily dated 11-2-86. When the alleged facts stated by the defendants in their reply notices are thus false, they cannot contend that they reached a bona fide conclusion prima facie the alleged incident happened as stated in their paper. The plaintiff is not aware of the nature of the publication made in the daily news paper "Udayam" and if "Udayam" published any false information against the plaintiff that would not afford justification for the libelous statements contained in the impugned publication of "Andhra Bhoomio" edition dt.11-2-1986 as one wrong cannot be justified by another wrong. The news item was not published as claimed by the defendants either as good faith or in fairness. The publication of news item in their newspaper which is claimed to be having wide circulation is all the more deplorable as the labellious statements against the plaintiff reached a wider section of the public. The publication is per section defamatory. It has no public importance. Even the news of public importance cannot be published if it is false and a little acre by the defendants would have shown that they are publishing false news, knowing that it will har the reputation of the plaintiff. It is false to state that the defendants have taken proper care and caution in publishing the said news item and that it was published in good faith. It is a pity that the defendants have not examined their regret even in the reply notice and challenged the plaintiff to file the suit.
It is appropriate to state that in this connection that the Criminal Case filed by the Police of Meliaputti against the plaintiff in Sessions Case No. 47/86 on the file of the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, for the alleged rape committed by the plaintiff against B.Ammayamma in acquittaland the Court came to the conclusion that it is a out and out false case engineered by Sub-Inspector of Police, Meliaputti, on account of grudge against the plaintiff and used the alleged victim woman as a pawn for taking his revenge against the plaintiff who happened to file cases against the Sub- Inspector and a Head Constable of Meliaputti Police Station on behalf of his clients. The said Court also described the action of the Sub-Inspector as a fit case which should be brought to the notice of the higher authorities of the Police Department for necessary action.
Averments made in the written statement : The undernoted averments were made in the written statement by the respondents-defendants in the suit:
The defendants were not aware of the educational qualifications of plaintiff but came to know that he is a practicing Advocate at Pathapatnam. The defendants are aware of his properties. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of his claim for his reputation and esteem he commands. qualifications of plaintiff but came to know that he is a practicing Advocate at Pathapatnam. The defendants are aware of his properties. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of his claim for his reputation and esteem he commands.
The allegations that the 1st defendant is the Editor and 2nd defendant is the Printer and Publisher is true. It is also true that "Andhra Bhoomi" is popular and has wide circulation. It is also true that a news item is published on 11- 1-1986. The same is meant for public information. The defendants are not aware whether the persons referred to in plaint III (b) have read or not. The allegations against plaintiff are serious and unbecoming of an Advocate a person belonging to a responsible and noble profession. The information about the conduct of the plaintiff was a sensation in the area and information was gathered and reported as news item. The conduct of individuals holding responsible position profession of noble nature is a matter of public importance and concern and it is in the public interest to publish the same.
The incident as narrated by the victim and others is published. It cannot be denied that if the incident has happened it is unjust and unbecoming of an Advocate whose professional claim is to fight for justice. It is a fact that on the allegations made by the complainant that police have taken the plaintiff to police station. This fact indicates that question of taking him to station does not arise unless he is arrested or is under a warrant of arrest. What actually was written in the police record subsequently is not available to the defendants. The complainant alleged grave charges against the plaintiff and the police have taken him to the police station. The representations of the defendants came to know of the conduct and trial of the concerned to support the evidence. Under the circumstances, it is the duty of the press to publish the news so that the grave crime is not shut out and it should be investigated and gravities are published.
These defendants have no malice and they are not aware of plaintiff before the date of incident and the flutter it enacted in the locality. The reporting of the news items is based on the allegations of the complainant and there was no reason to disbelieve the version given to the representative, the attention of General Public is drawn by the publication. It is the duty and privilege of press and right enshrined in the constitution of India, and Press is one of the media to acquaint the public of the happenings in and around them.
The same is not intended to cause any particular effect except that the case should take its course and if the complaint is true, the publication of its nature and details about the same and after effects to support it are all made public in the interest of public and thus public at large are entitled to know and they look up press for the same. It is true that plaintiff has issued a notice dated 22-3-1986. It is well established principles that the Press is privileged and it need not disclose its source of information. It is also true that defendants gave a reply about their bona fides and that the news item is not intended to defame anybody and that it is in public interest that it is published in all fairness and in good faith after gathering information from proper sources and that they are not liable for any action against them. The allegations in the plaint regarding his relationship with the police or his appearing against the alleged victim are not known to these defendants and they have no bearing on the suit claim. The allegations as to bona fides of the defendants in publishing the news item are true and it is not defamatory or cannot give rise to any cause of action. The criminal case and its result have no bearing on the facts of this case.
7. Issues settled by the trial Court:
1) Whether the publication dated 11-2-1986 was published by the defendants without any reasonable and probable cause with an intention to defame the plaintiff by causing disreputation to him?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to for the suit claim as damages on the ground of defamatory and libelous publication?
3) Whether the publication was made in good faith and in the public interest?
4) To what relief?
8. Evidence available on record:
P.W. 1 is S. Dandasai and D.W. 1 is M. Raja Gopal, News Editor, Andhra Bhoomi.
Ex. A.1 is the Paper publication in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper; Ex. A.2 is the Office copy of lawyer's notice sent to Editor and Printer of Andhra Bhoomi;
Ex. A.3 is the Reply notice sent by defendants; and Ex. A.4 is a certified copy of Judgment in S.C. No. 47/86 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. Ex. B.1 is the Report given by B.Ammayamma to the Reporter, Andhra Bhoomi, Kasibugga; Ex. B.2 is the Pamphlet published by B. Ammayamma; Ex. B.3 is the Press note given by Sub-Inspector of Police, Meliaputti and Ex. B.4 is the Office copy of the registered reply notice.
9. The findings recorded in nutshell by the trial Court already had been specified supra.
10. In the light of the rival contentions of the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:
1) Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court in relation to Ex. A.1 - Paper Publication in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case?
2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?
11. Point No. 1 : The respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the findings recorded by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, already had been specified supra. The plaintiff instituted the suit aggrieved by the news item published in Andhra Bhoomi daily newspaper dt.11-2- 1986 marked as Ex. A.1. The stand taken by the plaintiff is that the defendants published the publication without ascertaining or probing into the true facts of the case and the said news item was published only with a view to degrade the plaintiff in the society. The evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 is available on record and Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.4 and Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.4 were marked.
12. P.W. 1 deposed that he is an Advocate by profession and he studied M.A. History and secured a Degree in 1972 from Andhra University and further obtained LL.B., Degree in 1975 from Berhampur University and for about one year he practiced in Srikakulam and later he shifted his practice to Pathapatnam and he had picked up sufficient practice at Pathapatnam and enjoyed good reputation also. P.W. 1 also deposed that he is having number of relatives and also large section of the friends. The daily newspaper Andhra Bhoomi is being published from three centers from Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Vizag and it is having good circulation. On 11-2-1986 a news item was published at page No.7 in the said daily newspaper against him and the said news item, marked as Ex. A.1, was brought to his notice by one Tirupathi Rao, Sarpanch of Vasundhara village of Maliyaputti Mandal, within the jurisdiction of Pathapatnam. P.W. 1 also deposed that N.Rama Rao, Sarpanch of Maliputti village and I.Prasada Rao, Head Master, M.P.P.School, Pasumala also brought the said news item to his notice and then he got the paper and read the news item. P.W. 1 also deposed that by reading this news item, it would create an impression in the eye of the public that he had modested a Harijan lady and it was also shown that P.W. 1 is a cruel person and further a false imputation was made that he tried to tamper by influencing the police to suppress the alleged crime committed by him and this is a false imputation. This witness also deposed that a further imputation was made that he has no respect or social status by mentioning "_________ ______________".
P.W.1 deposed that this would indicate that it is shameful that a person like him to be in the profession. Further P.W. 1 deposed that the allegations made are false since for the commission of the alleged offence, he was not arrested by the police but in the article it was mentioned without any basis that he was arrested by the police. P.W. 1 also deposed that no Harijan woman had complained against him for any kind of misconduct and none of the persons connected with the Daily prior to publication met him to ascertain before publishing any such publication. P.W. 1 also deposed that the news item exposed him to public contempt and diminished his prestige due to which he suffered loss of reputation in the public. He was placed in high position in the society as a practicing Advocate and the publication is libelous publication against him. P.W. 1 also deposed that he was described as "Durmarga Nyayavadhi" and doing all illegal things. This witness also deposed that on observation the publication, he gave legal notice to the defendants on 11-2-1986 questioning the publication. Ex. A.2 is the office copy of notice. In Ex. A.2 P.W. 1 requested the defendants to supply the source of information for publication and reply notice Ex. A.3 was given denying the allegations. P.W. 1 also deposed that there was no such instance of rape case of a Harijan lady and in respect of rape case he was never arrested. This witness also deposed that Miliayputti police registered a case against him under Sections 448 and 354 I.P.C. and the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C. No. 47/86 on the file of Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge, Srikakulam is Ex. A.4. This witness also deposed that in Ex. A.1 publication the name of the victim was not written and for the first time, the name of the victim was disclosed in Ex. A.3 and the said Ammayamma belongs to Kapu community and not a Harijan. This witness also deposed several further details relating to the publication and had specifically stated that Ex. A.1 was not done in good faith and not a bona fide report at all and the defendants did not disclose the source of information for their publication in Ex. A.3. This witness also further deposed that he had appeared against Ammayamma in Pathapatnam Court in 5 cases as an Advocate and hence, she bore grudge against him. This witness also deposed about boycott of the Courts and other facts. This witness further deposed that before publishing Ex. A.1 item, the defendants did not contact him.
The Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, srikakulam passed remarks against S.I. of Police, Miliaputti in S.C. No. 47/86 dt.22-9-86 holding that on account of grudge against him, the S.I. of Police, Miliaputti used the alleged victim woman as a pawn for taking revenge against him as he happened to file cases against him, Head Constable on behalf of his clients and thus the claim of damages by way of compensation was prayed for for the said publication Ex. A.1 at Rs.1,00,000/-. In the cross-examination this witness deposed that he was not an Income Tax assessee and he is having 15 years standing at the Bar and for one year he practiced at Srikakulam and his native place is Vasundhara whi is 10 KMs., away from Pathapatnam and he is not in politics and there are fractions in the village and he belongs to Kapu community. This witness also deposed that these are grave allegations made against him and as an educated person since such allegations are made, these are sensational. This witness also deposed that Ex. A.1 statement is not a news item but statement. Again the witness deposed that Ex. A.1 is news item as if it is a statement. This witness also deposed that Press is not an investigating machinery to investigate a crime.
Press cannot give a Judgment about the commission of the crime. The Press enjoys the privileges but there are limitations. This witness also deposed about investigative journalism. This witness also deposed that if the allegations in Ex. A.1 are true, the Press is justified in publishing it. P.W. 1 also deposed that he is not in inimical terms with Andhra Bhoomi reporter from Kasibugga. The legal reporters of Andhra Bhoomi are friendly with him. This witness also deposed certain other additional facts.
13. D.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the defendants and this witness deposed that he is working as News Editor in Andhra Bhoomi daily and Ex. A.1 news item was published in the paper sent by their reporter from Kasibuga. The news relates to the atrocity of an Advocate on a Harijan woman. This witness also deposed that he verified the news item and asked the reporter to substantiate the news item and his reporter sent report given by the victim to the reporter, printed pamphlet signed by the victim and press note issued by Police, Meliaputti. These were marked as Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3. The complaint copy and press note given by police would corroborate the news item. This witness no doubt deposed that this complaint creates sensation in the area. The signed copy Ex. B.1 was attested by individuals. This witness also deposed that in the light of the place of offence and nature of offence, he thought that the statement of victim itself is sufficient and so he published the news item and he does not know these facts personally. Neither D.W. 1 nor his staff had any personal enmity with the Advocate and this news item was not published to defame the Advocate. As this was a sensational item, they published in their paper. They gave reply notice to the Advocate which is marked as Ex. A.3. In the cross- examination this witness deposed that there are different correspondents from different areas. There is no correspondent in Meliyaputti. This witness also deposed that the correspondent of Kasibugga sends news items for Meliaputti. This witness further deposed that they are having an agent at Parlakhimidi but they did not have any reporter and Maliaputti is only 5 miles from Parlakhimid and Kasibugga is more than 30 miles from Meliaputti. This witness also deposed he got the news from Kasibugga reporter and they are not having the original news item sent by the Kasibugga news reporter relating to the news. He also deposed that the news item was sent by the reporter by bus packet but not by telegraphic or by post and the said news item is not with their office. He also further deposed that normally they preserve the news item for 3 months. D.W. 1 further deposed that on 11-2-1986 the controversy item was published in their newspaper and they received Ex. A.2 within few days after publishing the news item and they gave reply Ex. A.3 on 30-4-1986. He also deposed that even after issuing Ex. A.3 reply notice, they did not preserve the news item sent by Kasibugga reporter because they did not anticipate any suite and by the date of Ex. A.3 they were not definite that no suit will file by the plaintiff against Andhra Bhoomi Editor and Publisher. He also further deposed that Ex. A.1 news item which they published on 11-2-1986 was received from Kasibugga correspondent of Andhra Bhoomi either on 9th or 10th February 1986. This witness also deposed that Ex. B.1 does not contain any date and from Ex. B.1 it cannot be said the date of its receipt and the date when it was sent and there is nothing to show that Ex. B.1 was sent with any covering letter and he cannot say who wrote Ex. B.1 and the thumb impression on Ex. B.1 is the victim or not. It was further deposed that the news item does not contain that it was atrocity against Harijan woman and he does not know Batchala Ammayamma is a Kapu woman. Ex. B-2 pamphlet does not indicate the name of press which printed it and if necessary that paper would indicate the name of the press which printed it. D.W. 1 further deposed that he cannot say the thumb impression on Ex. B.2 is of Botchala Ammayamma. Ex. B.2 does not contain the names of villages of Kosamala and Vasundara. Ex. B.2 does not contain the place where it was printed and date when it was printed. Ex. B-3 also does not contain any date. D.W. 1 deposed that he filed these documents on the date of his examination in Court and no reference was made in Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3 in the written statement or reply. The correspondent Kasibugga is not in service and D.W. 1 cannot say whether he is available or not. It was denied that Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3 had been created after filing the suit. It was further deposed that no one from Andhra Bhoomi office met the plaintiff before publishing the news item for verifying the news item and they had not recorded any statements from the villagers of Vasundara or Kosamala and further deposed that they did not consider that the publication of news item will affect the reputation because the police of Meliaputti gave Ex. B.3 and hence they did not consider an enquiry necessary. D.W. 1 further deposed that he has no evidence to show one Botchala Ammayamma is a Harijan woman. In the news item sent by the reporter, Kasibugga, stating that the plaintiff was arrested by police, except the reporters news item there is no basis for stating in Ex. A.1 that the plaintiff was arrested by Meliputti Police in connection with the incident mentioned in Ex. A.1.
14. The evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 had been already referred to supra. D.W. 1 in his cross-examination no doubt stated that no one from Andhra Bhoomi Office met the plaintiff before publishing the news item for verifying the news item. D.W.1 also deposed, as already referred to supra, that except their reporters of news item, there is no basis for stating in Ex. A.1 that the plaintiff was arrested by Meliputti Police in connection with the incident mentioned in Ex. A.1. This witness no doubt deposed that the correspondent of Kasibugga is not in service now. It is also pertinent to note that D.W. 1 deposed that as this is a sensational news, they published in the paper. Ex. A.1, in relation to which the action had been initiated, is as hereunder:
Ex. A.4 is the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C. No. 47/86 dated 22-9-1986 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The charges were attempt to commit rape and also house trespass. It appears that Ammayamma is a married lady and due to differences with her husband, there had been certain disputes and there was a civil dispute between the said lady and her husband in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Pathapatnam and in that connection, she had been attending Court and the accused also was attending the Court professionally and the accused conceived an evil idea to have sexual intercourse with Ammayamma and expressed his desire to her and she did not consider his request and in her house, on the night of 29-1-1986, the accused with a view to have sexual intercourse with her, trespassed into her house at 5.00 a.m., and further several other facts also had been narrated in the said charge sheet. In the aforesaid S.C. No. 47/86, P.Ws. 1 to 8 and D.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.4 and Exs. D.1 to D.28 and M.O. 1 were marked. The learned Judge at para 21 observed as hereunder:
P.W.7 the Sub-Inspector who is a responsible Officer ought not to have steeped down to the level of creating and foisting false case against the accused who is an Advocate. The duty of the S.I. is to protect the liberty of the individuals but not to foist cases according to his whims and fancies against the educated people like the acused. If this is the case, no citizen is free from the harassment of the police in the name of 'KHAKI UNIFORM' I am constrained to observe that the Sub Inspector is solely responsible for fabricating this case against the accused with the assistance of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and Salani Mohanarao who is enimically disposed of towards accused. The Sub Inspector made-good the proverb "Kanche Chenu Mesindi". I have no hesitation to direct the higher authorities to take necessary action against the Sub-Inspector for fabricating and foisting the case against an Advocate, practicing in the Court of J.F.C.M., Pathapatnam. In a civilized society, it is the duty of the police, to protect the rights of all the citizens including the weaker sections. The Sub Inspector took the law into his own hands and unscrupulously foisted this case against the accused who is practicing Advocate so daringly without reason and rhyme.
It is true that in the Sessions Case referred to supra an acquittal had been recorded and certain findings also had been recorded as already specified supra. Submissions at length were made by the Counsel on record in relation thereto and the Counsel representing respondents-defendants would maintain that these observations cannot be taken as in any way aiding or supporting the claim of appellant-plaintiff since the respondents-defendants in public interest, in good faith and bona fide made the publication being satisfied in relation to the incident in controversy especially in the light of Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3. This is a case where a practicing Advocate approached the Court claiming damages or compensation on the ground that without properly probing or verifying the facts, false news had been published, by virtue of which his reputation was seriously injured. In substance, the defence of the respondents-defendants is that their action is safe-guarded by the freedom of press and even if the limitations in relation thereto be taken into consideration, the said publication was made in the light of Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3 in public interest bona fide and in good faith and in view of the admissions made by P.W. 1 himself, no malice as such can be culled out and since the appellant-plaintiff suffered no damage at all, no compensation need be granted.
15. The members of legal profession occupy status in the society and also they are expected to be careful and cautious and more responsible as well. A lawyer is an integral part of administration of justice and Courts to a very large extent would depend upon the scholarship and wisdom of such Advocates assisting the Courts and in a way every Advocate is an amicus curiae. It is true when such responsible Advocate is said to have involved in the commission of a crime, naturally, Law would take its own course. It is also true that merely because of that status, it cannot be said that when otherwise it is permissible, a news item or statement in relation thereto cannot be published at all. When the very stand of D.W. 1 is that it is a news of sensation on appreciation of evidence, it is to be seen whether the respondents-defendants acted with due diligence, taking necessary precautions expected to be taken, before making such publication in the newspaper - Andhra Bhoomi daily. In Ex. A.4 the date of apprehension of the accused was shown as 23-6-1986. The date of publication of the news item Ex. A.1 is 11-2-1986. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the statement that Harizan lady was involved in the episode also appears to be an incorrect statement. The way in which the statement or news item as such had been published and the contents thereof, already had been specified supra. It may be that on the strength of the First Information Report, the said news item was published. It is true that the subsequent acquittal recorded, as evidenced by Ex. A.4, may not be of much help to the appellant-plaintiff. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors. where the Apex Court while dealing with freedom of press and right to privacy and publication of autobiography of condemned prisoner observed as hereunder:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, 650 his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being published in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule.
(4) So far as the government, local authority and other organs and institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
(5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any similar enactment or provision having the force of law does not bind the press or media.
(6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media.
Thus the Editor/Publisher of the Magazine have a right to publish, what they alleged to be the life-story/autobiography of condemned prisoner in so far as it appears from the public records, even without his consent or authorization. But if they go beyond that and publish his life-story, they may be invading his right to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in accordance with law.
Similarly, the State or its Officials cannot prevent or restrain the said publication. The remedy of the affected public officials/public figures, if any, is after the publication.
Reliance also was placed on Janab Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi v. Syed Vigaruddin 2006 ALT (Cri.) 1 45 and this decision was in relation to a criminal case filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. However, this was also a case of an Editor/Journalist making a publication in relation to an episode of alleged criminal conspiracy as President of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee. The undernoted decisions had been referred to while confirming the acquittal and dismissing the criminal appeal:
Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjiya , Sahib Singh v. State of U.P. , Sukra Mahto v. Basudeo Kumar , Chaman Lal v. The State of Punjab , Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 S.C. 702, DR. N.B. Khare v. M.R. Masani ILR (1943) Nag 347 : AIR 1942 Nag. 117, Arnold v. King Emperor LR (1913-14) 41 Ind. App. 149 : AIR 1914 PC 116, State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari , Chandrasekhara v. Karthikeyan , Emperor v. M. Chatterji AIR 1993 Allahabad 434 and Bhagwan Das v. Emperor AIR 1927 Allahabad 116.
Reliance also was placed on Advocate Co. v. Arthur Leslie AIR 1946 P.C. 13 wherein it was held that if on a fair construction the words alleged to be libelous are spoken of a class or body of persons, an individual member of the class or body cannot sue in respect of them unless there are circumstances that show that they may be aimed at him. If they may be in all the circumstances, the Judge must leave it to the jury to say if they are in fact. Among such circumstances may be the smallness of the class referred to, so that it could fairly be said that all its members are aimed at. In Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr. v. Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and Ors. dealing with qualified privilege, malice, burden of proof, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed:
Mr. Mistry, on behalf of the plaintiff, further argued that even if qualified privilege was assumed in favour of the defendants, he was able to show that the attack on his client was malicious. The law is clear in the matter. Malice in law, which is presumed in every false and defamatory statement, stands rebutted by a privileged occasion. In such a case, in order to make a libel actionable, the burden of proving actual or express malice is always on the plaintiff. Malice in that sense means making use of a privileged occasion for an indirect or improper motive. Such malice can be proved in a variety of ways, inter alia (i) by showing that the writer did not honestly believe in the truth of these allegations, or that he believed the same to be false; (ii) or that the writer is moved by hatred or dislike, or a desire to injure the subject of the libel and is merely using the privileged occasion to defame... and (iii) by showing that out of anger, prejudice or wrong motive, the writer casts aspersions on other people, reckless whether they are true or false.... Mr. Mistry contends that almost all the material defamatory allegations in the Article come under one or more of the above categories.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while dealing with this aspect in detail had referred to the undernoted decisions:
1967 3 All ER 523 (PC) Australian Consolidated Press v. Uren; 1964-1 All ER 367 : 1964 AC 1129 Rookes v. Barnard; 1964 3 All ER 947 : 1965 2 WLR 45 McCarey v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.; 1963 2 All ER 151 : 79 LCR 489 Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.; 1961 AC 1090 : 1961 1 All ER 876 Webb v. Times Publishing Co. Ltd.; (1934) 50 TLR 581 : 78 SJ 617 Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Ltd; 1930 1 KB 130 : 45 TLR 619 Watt v. Longsdon; 1917 AC 309 : 86 LJKB 849 (HL) Adam v. Ward; 1916 2 AC 15 : 85 LJKB 698 London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd.; (1915) 31 TLR 299 (CA) Adam v. Ward; AIR 1914 PC 116 Channing Arnold v. King Emperor; (1909) 25 TLR 534 Mangena v. Wright; (1893) 59 Fed 530 Post Pub. Co. v. Hallam; (1892) 1 QB 431 Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society v. Parkinson; (1891) 7 TLR 502 Stuart v. Bell; (1889) 23 QBD 400 Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration; (1877) 2 CPD 215 Purcell v. Sowler; (1863) 122 ER 288 Campbell v. Spottiswoode; (1862) 4 F & F 13 Cox v. Feeney; (1834) 149 Er 1044 Toogood v. Spyring; 28 DLR 343 (Canada) Banks v. Globe & Mail Ltd., and 22 DLR (2d) 277 (SC Canada) The Globe and Mail Ltd. v. Boland.
In Jameel and Ors. (Respondents) v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (Appellants) CDJ 2006 HOL 044 the House of Lords while dealing with Reynolds privilege observed at paras 33 and 43 as hereunder:
Lord Nicholls (at p. 205) listed certain matters which might be taken into account in deciding whether the test of responsible journalism was satisfied.
He intended these as pointers which might be more or les indicative, depending on the circumstances of a particular case, and not, I feel sure, as a series of hurdles to be negotiated by a publisher before he could successfully rely on qualified privilege. Lord Nicholls recognized (at pp. 202-203), inevitably as I think, that it had to be a body other than the publisher, namely the Court, which decided which a publication was protected by qualified privilege. But this does not mean that the editorial decisions and judgments made at the time, without the knowledge of falsity which is a benefit of hindsight, are irrelevant. Weight should ordinarily be given to the professional Judgment of an editor or journalist in the absence of some indication that it was made in a casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless manner.
The newspaper's principal defence was based on Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (2001) 2 AC 127. It is called in the trade "Reynolds privilege" but the use of the term privilege, although historically accurate, may be misleading. A defence of privilege in the usual sense is available when the defamatory statement was published on a privileged occasion and can be defeated only by showing that the privilege was abused. As Lord Diplock said in a well known passage in Horrocks v. Lowe (1975) AC 135, 149:
The public interest that the law should provide an effective means whereby a man can vindicate his reputation against calumny has nevertheless to be accommodated to the competing public interest in permitting men to communicate frankly and freely with one another about matters in respect of which the law recognizes that they have a duty to perform or an interest to protect in doing so. What is published in good faith on matters of these kinds is published on a privileged occasion. It is not actionable even though it be defamatory and turns out to be untrue. With some exceptions which are irrelevant to the instant appeal, the privilege is not absolute but qualified. It is lost if the occasion which gives rise to it is misused.
Further the House of Lords on the aspect of public interest observed at para 48 as hereunder:
The first question is whether the subject matter of the article was a matter of public interest. In answering this question, I think that one should consider the article as a whole and not isolate the defamatory statement. It is true that Lord Nicholls said, in the passage which I have quoted above, that the question is whether the publication of "particular material" was privileged because of its value to the public. But the term "particular material" was in my opinion being used by contrast with the generic privilege advocated by the newspaper. It was saying that one must consider the contents of each publication and not decide the matter simply by reference to whether it fell within a general category like political information. But that did not mean that it was necessary to find a separate public interest justification for each item of information within the publication. Whether it was justifiable to include the defamatory statement is a separate question, to which I shall return in a moment.
Further while discussing responsible journalism at paras 53 and 54 the House of Lords observed:
If the publication, including the defamatory statement, passes the public interest test, the inquiry then shifts to which the steps taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair. As Lord Nicholls said in Bonnick v. Morris (2003) 1 AC 300, 309:
Stated shortly, the Reynolds privilege is concerned to provide a proper degree of protection for responsible journalism when reporting matters of public concern. Responsible journalism is the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals. Maintenance of this standard is in the public interest and in the interests of those whose reputations are involved. It can be regarded as the price journalists pay in return for the privilege." Lord Nicholls was speaking in the context of a publication in a newspaper but the defence is of course available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium. The question in each case is whether the defendant behaved fairly and responsibly I gathering and publishing the information. But I shall for convenience continue to describe this as "responsible journalism". In Reynolds (Respondent) v. Times Nespapers Limited and Ors. (Appellants) (2006) 1 Law 223 : 2001 (2) AC 127 the House of Lords had an occasion to deal with the Privilege and Malice, Honest comment on public interest, Defamation and Truth, Publication to world at large, Freedom of Expression and Protection of reputation, and responsibility of a Journalist in the context of freedom of expression, the Journalistic ethics to be maintained and it was observed as hereunder:
The defence of qualified privilege must be seen in its overall setting in the law of defamation. Historically the common law has set much store by protection of reputation. Publication of a statement adversely affecting a person's reputation is actionable. The plaintiff is not required to prove that the words are false. Nor, in the case of publication in a written or permanent form, is he required to prove he has been damaged. But, as Littledale J. said in Mc. Pherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B & C 263, 272, the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess'. Truth is a complete defence. If the defendant proves the substantial truth of the words complained of, he thereby establishes the defence of justification. With the minor exception of proceedings to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies, this defence is of universal application in civil proceedings. It avails a defendant even if he was acting spitefully.
The classic exposition of malice in this context is that of Lord Diplock in Horrocks v. Lowe (1975) A.C. 135, 149. If the defendant used the occasion for some reason other than the reason for which the occasion was privileged he loses the privilege. Thus, the motive with which the statement was made is crucial.
If desire to injure was the dominant motive the privilege is lost. Similarly, if the maker of the statement did not believe the statement to be true, or if he made the statement recklessly, without consider or caring whether it was true or not. Lord Diplock, at p.150, emphasized that indifferent to truth is not to be equated with carelessness, impulsiveness or irrationality in arriving at a positive believe that it is true:
In ordinary life it is rate indeed for people to form their beliefs by a process of logical deduction from facts ascertained by a rigorous search for all available evidence and a judicious assessment of its probative value. In greater or in less degree according to their temperaments, their training, their intelligence, they are swayed by prejudice, rely on intuition instead of reasoning, leap to conclusions on inadequate evidence and fail to recognize the cogency of material which might cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions they reach. But despite the imperfection of the mental process by which the belief is arrived at it may still be 'honest', that is, a positive belief that the conclusions they have reached are true. The law demands no more'.
In determining which an occasion is regarded as privileged the Court has regard to all the circumstances: see, for example, the explicit statement of Lord Buckmaster L.C. in London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd. (1916) 2 A.C. 15, 23 ('every circumstances associated with the origin and publication of the defamatory matter'). And circumstances must be viewed with today's eyes. By the circumstances in which the public interest requires a communication to be protected in the absence of malice depend upon current social conditions. The requirements at the close of the twentieth century may not be the same as those of earlier centuries or earlier decades of this century.
This issue has arisen several times in the context of newspapers discharging their important function of reporting matters of public importance. Two instances will suffice, together with one instance of the publication in book form of information originating with the publisher. Purcell v. Sowler (1877) 2 C.P.D. 215 concerned a newspaper report of a public meeting of poor-law guardians. During the meeting the medical officer of the workhouse at Knutsford was said to have neglected to attend pauper patients when sent for. In deciding that publication of this allegation was not privileged, the Court of Appeal looked beyond the subject matter. The Court held that the administration of the poor-law was a matter of national concern, but there was no duty to report charges made in the absence of the medical officer and without his having had any opportunity to meet them. The meeting was a privileged occasion so far as the speaker was concerned, but publication in the press was not. In Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 400, 410, the defendants published a book containing minutes of a meeting of the council recording that the plaintiff's name had been removed from the medical register for infamous professional conduct. This was after an inquiry at which the plaintiff had been represented by counsel. The Court of Appeal held that the publication was privileged. Giving the Judgment of the Court, Lopes L.J. expressly had regard to the nature of the tribunal, the character of the report, the interests of the public in the proceedings of the council and the duty of the council towards the public. Perera v. Peiris (1949) A.C. 1 21, was an appeal to the Privy Council from the Supreme Court of Ceylon. The 'Ceylon Daily News' had published extracts from a report of the Bribery Commission which was critical of Dr. Perera's lack of frankness in his evidence. The Judicial Committee upheld a claim to qualified privilege. In the light of the origin and contents of the report and its relevance to the affairs of Ceylon, the due administration of the affairs of Ceylon required that the report should receive the widest publicity.
Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being: whom to employ or work for, whom to promote, whom to do business with or to vote for. Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged for ever, especially if there is no opportunity to vindicate one's reputation. When this happens, society as well as the individual is the loser. For it should not be supposed that protection of reputation is a matter of importance only to the affected individual and his family. Protection of reputation is conductive to the public good. It is in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely. In the political field, in order to make an informed choice, the electorate needs to be able to identify the good as well as the bad. Consistently with these considerations, human rights conventions recognize that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Its exercise may be subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputations of others.
With defamatory imputations of fact the position is different and more difficult. Those who read or hear such allegations are unlikely to have any means of knowing whether they are true or not. In respect of such imputations, a plaintiff's ability to obtain a remedy if he can prove malice is not normally a sufficient safeguard. Malice is notoriously difficult to prove. If a newspaper is understandably unwilling to disclose its sources, a plaintiff can be deprived of the material necessary to prove, or even allege, that the newspaper acted recklessly in publishing as it did without further verification.
Thus, in the absence of any additional safeguard for representation, a newspaper, anxious to be first with a 'scoop', would in practice be free to publish seriously defamatory misstaments of fact based on the slenderest of materials. Unless the paper chose later to withdraw the allegations, the politician thus defamed would have no means of clearing his name, and the public would have no means of knowing where the truth lay. Some further protection for reputation is needed if this can be achieved without a disproportionate incursion into freedom of expression.
I can seen no sufficient ground for interfering with that decision.
Further, despite the defendants' criticisms of some of the grounds set out by the Court of Appeal at (1998) 3 W.L.R. 862, 911-912, the facts relied upon by Mr. Reynolds before the judge were clear and undisputed. A most telling criticism of the article is the failure to mention Mr. Reynolds' own explanation to the Dail. Mr. Ruddock omitted this from the article because he rejected Mr. Reynolds' version of the events and concluded that Mr. Reynolds had been deliberately misleading. It goes without saying that a journalist is entitled and bound to reach his own conclusions and to express them honestly and fearlessly. He is entitled to disbelieve and refute explanations given. But this cannot be a good reason for omitting, from a hard-hitting article making serious allegations against a named individual, all mention of that person's own explanation. Particularly so, when the press offices had told Mr. Ruddock that Mr. Reynolds was not giving interviews but would be saying all he had to say in the Dail. His statement in the Dail was his answer to the allegations. An article omitting all reference to this statement could not be a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the Dail. Such an article would be misleading as a report. This article is not defended as a report, but it was misleading nonetheless. By omitting Mr. Reynolds' explanation English readers were left to suppose that, so far, Mr. Reynolds had offered no explanation. Further, it is elementary fairness that, in the normal course, a serious charge should be accompanied by the gist of any explanation already given. An article which fails to do so faces an uphills task in claiming privilege if the allegation proves to be false and the unreported explanation proves to be true.
Was the information in the 'Sunday Times' article information the public was entitled to know? The subject matter was undoubtedly of public concern in this country. However, these serious allegations by the newspaper, presented as statements of fact but shorn of all mention of Mr. Reynolds' considered explanation, were not information the public had a right to know. I agree with the Court of Appeal this was not a publication which should in the public interest be protected by privilege in the absence of proof of malice. The further facts the defendants with to assert and prove at the retrial would make no difference, either on this point or overall.
The House of Lords, in fact, had specified a list which no doubt is not exhaustive at para 58 and it was observed at para 58 as hereunder:
1) The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2) The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3) The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4) The steps taken to verify the information.
5) The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6) The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7) Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8) Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9) The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10) The circumstances of the publication, including the time.
Reliance also was placed on the decisions of the Press Council in Shri Rajender Singh, Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Rewari, Haryana v. The Editor, Punjab Kesari, Ambala, Haryana and also yet another decision of the Press Council in The Principal, Government College, Gurgaon, Haryana v. The Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Gurgaon, Haryana, wherein, in relation to the publication of false news items, the Press Council had an occasion to consider the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee and accepted the reasons and findings and the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee. It is needless to say that these decisions of the Press Council will have the limited scope and ambit in the light of the Legislation concerned. It is needless to say that the said decisions are not binding precedents on this Court. Equally, the decisions of the House of Lords, though may have pursuance value, being foreign Judgments, cannot be treated as binding precedents on this Court, but however, in the light of the fact that this country had adopted the common law jurisprudence and the fundamental principles relating to this field being almost common, except for the statutory variations, if any, the principles which had been laid down by the House of Lords may also to be taken into consideration in addition to the decisions of the different High Courts inclusive of the Apex Court of this country.
16. It is true that P.W. 1 deposed that he cannot make any specific grievance against the concerned reporters. It is also true that the concerned reporter was not examined. The duties and obligations of a journalist, a news reporter, or an editor, or the publisher, need not be overemphasized. It is true that in the case of grievance ventilated by individuals on the ground that certain defamatory statements were made by publication in newspapers, the reputation of the concerned aggrieved parties on one hand and the freedom of press on the other, may have to be equally balanced. It is needless to say that the journalists are expected to be careful and cautious while proceeding to make publications of this nature. The First Information Report registered by the police and further Ex. B.1 to Ex. B.3 are being strongly relied upon relating to the bona fide belief and the good faith by virtue of which the publication Ex. A.1 is said to have been made. Recording a statement of fact as reflected by record is something different from making a publication giving exaggerated versions with several deviations and improvements, virtually reducing the true episode to its lowest bottom may have to be always deprecated for the reason, at that stage, the public may not be able to draw any distinction, whatsoever, between that portion which may be true and that portion which may be untrue. If such distorted or deviated versions are made without any basis or without any material or at least without taking minimum care in a reckless and negligent manner under the guise of freedom of expression or freedom of press, respondents-defendants cannot escape.
17. The importance of an independent Press and protecting the freedom of Press always may have to be kept in mind, but the same cannot be stretched too far so as to protect the Editor, Publisher or a Journalist from every kind of publication. Courts are expected to be careful and cautious while appreciating the facts of a given case and the limitations or the privileges of the Press in the context of making publications where defamatory statements are complained of by the affected parties. It may be that, the fact that a report was made to the concerned Station House Officer may not be in controversy. It may be true that a report relating to the outraging of modesty of a woman and trespass might have been made as against the appellant/plaintiff. Even to apply the test of justification by truth, though the fact that an alleged incident was reported to police, may not be in serious dispute, the reporting of the distorted and deviated versions with the comments of this nature as reflected in Ex. A.1, as though the appellant/plaintiff is in a way misfit to be continued as a legal professional, without proper verification of facts at least, may not fall within the umbrella of protective journalism since it cannot be said to be falling within responsible journalism. This Court is conscious of the fact that this is a very slender and delicate area and may be if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the views expressed in the publication are just and on the erring side of a journalist, Courts may pardon such remarks, but where the comments are beyond the permissible limits, well embedded with certain untrue comments, that too without taking the minimum expected care to be taken by the respondents/defendants, while proceeding to make a publication of the nature as that of Ex. A.1, there cannot be any justifiable reason to let off such parties free of any liability whatsoever.
18. On a careful reading of Ex. A.1, it is not just mere recording the information by way of publication by a newspaper in public interest. May be that the respondents might have thought of making this publication for certain extraneous reasons on the ground that the said news is a sensational news as admitted by D.W. 1 himself. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that though relating to basic foundation of the episode, there appears to be some material as against appellant-plaintiff, the way in which without due verification additional unfounded exaggerated versions had been given virtually playing an independent role, certain statements or comments being far from truth, such defamatory statements made in the publication Ex. A.1 cannot be warded off under the guise of the freedom of press. The freedom of press is having its privileges and also equally the duties, the responsibilities and also the obligations. The non-examination of the news reporter, the non-furnishing of the material relating to the source of information, the clear false statements and exaggerated defamatory statements made in a reckless and negligent manner without even verifying the truth or otherwise would constitute defamation and such claim cannot be totally negatived on the ground of the protection to be extended to the journalists by virtue of the freedom of press. While giving an episode on the strength of information - the news reporters, editor, publisher are expected to be within limits by just further reflecting such material to be known to the public by means of publication. Responsible journalism always would be protected. Reckless journalism, beyond the permissible limits, not to be permitted. However, on a careful analysis of all the facts, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that in the light of the evidence of D.W. 1, while describing the episode in question, there was some truth in the episode, as reflected from by the First Information Report and the statement of the aggrieved lady, but however, the permissible limits had been exceeded by the respondents-defendants. The peculiar facts of the case would go to show that there are several mitigating circumstances by virtue of which the claim as made by the appellant-plaintiff cannot be granted. The episode as such is not totally false but however, the exaggerated false versions made without proper verification, without due diligence, in a reckless manner, cannot be totally ignored and hence in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances the claim made by appellant-plaintiff to be partly allowed and accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed decreeing the suit estimating the compensation by way of damages to a tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). This quantum is being fixed keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscious and also taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case.
19. Point No. 2 : In the light of the findings recorded above, the suit is decreed to an extent of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) and accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. However, in the light of the peculiarity of the facts, the parties to the litigation to bear their own costs.