Delhi District Court
Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal vs Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd on 18 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ADJ07, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Jay Thareja, DHJS
Civil Suit No: 1412/2017
Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal
R/o 587, SectorA,
PocketC, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi110070.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Office at:
FC8, Noida, Sector16A,
Near Film City, Noida201301.
2. Sh. Abhijit Majumdar
Editor of Mynation.com
Viswayuvak Kendra No.1,
Circular Road, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi110021.
3. Professor Makarand R. Pranjape
Centre for English Studies,
Jawahar Lal Nehru University,
New Delhi110067.
... Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF RS.50,00,000/
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.09.2017
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 21.09.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 18.10.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants, seeking recovery Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.1 of 19of damages of Rs.50,00,000/.
2. In order to justify the recovery of the aforesaid damages from the defendants, the plaintiff has interalia pleaded in the plaint of this suit that the plaintiff is a journalist; that currently, the plaintiff is employed as the political editor of Caravan Magazine; that previously, the plaintiff was employed with a variety of publications including Indian Express, Tehelka, Open Magazine and Mail Today; that the plaintiff has authored books published by Harper Collins and Princeton University Press; that the defendant no.1 is a private company that publishes a daily newspaper, 'Mail Today'; that the defendant no.2 is the editor of Mail Today; that the defendant no.3 is a Professor of English at the Centre for English Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru University; that the plaintiff is aggrieved by an article of the defendant no.3, published in Mail Today, on 06.09.2017, qua a book written by Sh. Ratan Sharda about the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, wherein as a side wind, the plaintiff has been unnecessarily described as a 'Khalistani bigot'; that the description of the plaintiff, as a Khalistani bigot by the defendant no.3, has resulted in defamation of the plaintiff, in the eyes of his friends and colleagues, including Sh. Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute of Conflict Management and Sh. Jatin Gandhi, Associate Editor, Hindustan Times, as the plaintiff, who is the nephew of Late K. P. S. Gill, has a record of being a vocal critic of the Khalistanis and the Khalistani movement and that on account of the said defamation, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants, the damages of Rs.50,00,000/.
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, only the defendant no.1 has contested this suit, by filing its written statement. In the written statement of the defendant no.1, it is interalia pleaded that the defendant no.1 is filing its written statement through Dr. Puneet Jain, who has been authorized to Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.2 of 19represent the defendant no.1, vide board resolution dated 22.09.2015; that the defendant no.2 has left the services of the defendant no.1, w.e.f. 16.04.2018; that the views expressed by the defendant no.3 in the impugned article, as a guest writer, do not represent the views of the defendant no.1; that a reading of the impugned article, clearly reveals that the plaintiff is not central to the theme of the impugned article and that the defendant no.3 had used the words, Khalistani bigot qua the plaintiff, only to show how other people label the plaintiff; that the contents of the impugned article are more of an evaluation of the book, 'RSS 360 Degrees:
An Insider's Views From Outside', written by Sh. Ratan Sharda; that after publication of the impugned article, on 06.09.2017, the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 had entered into a Twitter exchange, wherein the defendant no.3 had informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff had been described as a Khalistani bigot in his Wikipedia page, which was being visited by millions of people worldwide and that the defendant no.3 had himself never called the plaintiff, a Khalistani bigot; that the defendant no.1 has removed the words Khalistani bigot from the impugned article, which was published on its website; that the defendant no.1 holds no malice or grudge against the plaintiff; that the defendant no.1 does not have any intention to harm the reputation of the plaintiff; that the defendant no.1 had only provided a platform for publication of the impugned article of the defendant no.3, who is a distinguished, respected and an eminent educationist and that in such circumstances, this Court should dismiss this suit, with costs in favour of the defendant no.1.
4. In the replication qua the written statement of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has traversed the contents of the said written statement, made the necessary denials and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. Additionally, the plaintiff has pleaded that Dr. Puneet Jain does not have the authority to represent Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.3 of 19the defendant no.1 and therefore, this Court should not rely upon the written statement of the defendant no.1.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by a Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 16.12.2020: "1. Whether impugned article published in Mail Today is defamatory to the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages? OPP
3. Relief."
6. During the trial of this suit, three witnesses viz. PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal, PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni and PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi were examined in support of the case of the plaintiff and despite grant of opportunity, the defendant no.1 had not lead any evidence.
7. During examinationinchief, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered in evidence viz. copy of the impugned article, written by the defendant no.3, Ex.PW1/1, copy of the article written by the plaintiff in the Caravan Magazine, Ex.PW1/2, copy of certain writings and speeches of the plaintiff, Ex.PW1/3. 1 During cross examination by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1, PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal had interalia deposed that upon publication of the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, no action was taken against him by his employer, Caravan Magazine; that on the date of publication of the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1 i.e. 06.09.2017, 1 The Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 had objected to the tendering of the said documents by the plaintiff, interalia on the ground that all the said documents are electronic records and the plaintiff has not filed on record, any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The said objection was not decided instantaneously and is still alive for consideration by this Court.
Civil Suit No.1412/2017Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.4 of 19he had written about the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1 on his Twitter account; that the defendant no.3 had responded to his Twitter post but he does not remember the exact words exchanged between him and the defendant no.3; that he remembers that the defendant no.3 had mentioned something about Wikipedia and in response thereof, he had informed the defendant no.3 that Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source; that the tweets mentioned in the Twitter exchange, Ex.PW1/X1 (consisting of 3 pages) are the tweets exchanged between him and the defendant no.3, on 06.09.2017; that he does not remember if after the Twitter exchange, Ex.PW1/X1, he had visited the link of the Wikipedia page, Mark PW1/X2, shared by the defendant no.3; that it is wrong to say that he was deposing falsely in this Court, in this regard; that he had not filed any case against Wikipedia; that nobody had ever called him a Khalistani bigot before the publication of the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, on 06.09.2017; that he knows the journalist, Sh. Sreenivasan Jain and had attended a media rumble programme with him in the year 2017; that the transcript of the said programme is Ex.PW1/X2 (consisting of 3 pages); that during the said programme he had made the statement, "The blow back that today I will get his that I am a Khalistani"; that he had made the said statement to underscore his point that certain people with an agenda to undermine his journalism are likely to use the term Khalistani; that before making the said statement, he had not read anything, where he was referred to as a Khalistani; that it is wrong to say that on several occasions, he had been referred to as a Khalistani; that he did not suffer any disadvantage either financially or otherwise in his current organization as they know him very well; that after the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, was published, certain people had expressed outrage as to how such a reference could be made against him; that nobody had ever told him that after reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, their impression of him, had turned down and that it is wrong to say that the impugned Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.5 of 19article, Ex.PW1/1, had not resulted in his defamation.
8. During examinationinchief, PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni had deposed through his affidavit, Ex.PW2/A. The operative portion of the said affidavit, which consists of only two paragraphs, is reproduced below:
"1. I say that on the 6 th September 2017, I read an article appeared in the newspaper under the name of Makarand Paranjape. Wherein, Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal was described as a Khalistani bigot. After reading the said article, I called later to express my dismay.
2. I say that Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal is a journalist and editor of longstanding, I have never seen him subscribing to or endorsing the idea of a separate Sikh state commonly known as "Khalistani". In fact, quiet to the contrary he had been a strident critic of the Khalistanis."
9. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1, PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni had interalia deposed that his affidavit, Ex.PW2/A was signed at his residence; that at that time, it did not have the stamps of the Notary Public; that he had never met the Notary Public; that in his affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, his age is wrongly mentioned as 64 years because at the time of preparation of the affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, his age was 66 years; that he is the director of 'Institute for Conflict Management' and that in his affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, it is wrongly mentioned that he is director of 'Institute of Conflict Management'; that while signing his affidavit, Ex.PW2/A, he had only checked the operational paragraphs, quoted above; that he understands that the impugned article, was published in the Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.6 of 19newspaper, "Miday"; that in the impugned article, the plaintiff was described with the words, "believed to be a rabid Khalistani"; that after reading the impugned article, the reputation of the plaintiff had not gone down in his eyes; that he knows the position of the plaintiff very well and was only concerned about the impact of the allegation made in the impugned article on his institute, of which, the plaintiff was one of the directors and that it is wrong to say that he had falsely deposed in favour of the plaintiff, on account of his longstanding relations with the plaintiff.
10. During examinationinchief, PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi had deposed through his affidavit, Ex.PW3/A. The operative portion of the said affidavit, which consists of only two paragraphs and which is strikingly identical to the affidavit, Ex.PW2/A of PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni, is reproduced below:
"1. I say that on the 6 th September 2017, I read an article appeared in the newspaper under the name of Makarand Paranjape. Wherein, Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal was described as a Khalistani bigot. After reading the said article, I called later to express my dismay.
2. I say that Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal is a journalist and editor of longstanding, I have never seen him subscribing to or endorsing the idea of a separate Sikh state commonly known as "Khalistani". In fact, quiet to the contrary he had been a strident critic of the Khalistanis."
11. During crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1, PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi had interalia deposed that upon reading the impugned article, his impression about the plaintiff had lowered; that he had believed the Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.7 of 19contents of the impugned article because previously he had worked with the India Today Magazine, as a journalist; that immediately upon reading the impugned article, he had contacted the plaintiff on phone and asked, "what is this I am reading about you"; that he knows the plaintiff since 1997 and has good relations with him; that he had worked with the plaintiff at Indian Express and Open Magazine; that from his prior association with the plaintiff, he had knowledge that the plaintiff had strong views against the Khalistani movement; that he has not worked with the plaintiff, after publication of the impugned article; that he had come to Court to sign his affidavit, Ex.PW3/A; that during the preparation of his affidavit, Ex.PW3/A, he had only dictated paragraphs 1 and 2 and made the correction at point B1 to B2; that it is wrong to say that he had deposed falsely in this Court, at the instructions of the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff and PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni2 and that during the period between the conclusion of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni and commencement of his testimony, on 27.02.2021, he had conversed with the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff for about one minute, wherein he had expressed his grievance qua being made to sit for so long and miss his lunch.
12. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, I had heard Sh. Raghav Awasthi and Sh. Kunal Tiwari, Ld. Advocates for the plaintiff and Sh. Hrishikesh Barua and Ms. Apporva Jain, Ld. Advocates for the defendant no.1, on 04.04.2022, 2 During the hearing of final arguments, on 21.09.2022, the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 had explained the significance of the said suggestion, by referring to the report of Sh. Ankur Saini, Ld. Local Commissioner/Advocate, appointed by this Court to record evidence in this suit. In paragraph 5 of the said report, it is recorded that on 27.02.2021, when the crossexamination of PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni was concluded, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had expressed his intent to meet PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi before his examination and that the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 had objected to it. It was the case of the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 that in a brief meeting, which PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi had admittedly done with the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, on 27.02.2021, despite his protest, PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi was tutored by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, to first and foremost state in his crossexamination that upon reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, his impression about the plaintiff, had lowered.
Civil Suit No.1412/2017Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.8 of 1909.09.2022 and 21.09.2022. Also, in order to adjudicate upon this suit, I have examined the written submissions filed by the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, on 04.04.2022.
13. Before giving the findings qua the issues framed in this suit, on 16.12.2020, I find it expedient to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhartu v Indian Express Newspapers & Ors., (1995) 32 DRJ 246, Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar & Anr. v Citi Bank N.A. & Ors., (2008) 147 DLT 349, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v Durdana Zamir, (2009) 109 DRJ 357 and Kamlesh Sherawat v Lalji Patel, (2016) SCC OnLine Del 3400 because the said judgments, broadly explain the law regarding tort of defamation and the law regarding pleadings in a plaint of a suit, based on the tort of defamation.
14. In Bhartu (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit for premised on the tort of defamation. After taking note of the various definitions of defamation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that "...reputation is the estimation in which a person is held by others. A man's estimate of himself is not his reputation."
15. In Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar (supra) also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit premised on the tort of defamation. While allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed, as under:
"10. ...Even otherwise under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiffs. Where a person alleges his reputation has been Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.9 of 19
damaged it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking people of society or his friends or relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feelings or annoys him. Injuries to feelings of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. ..."
16. In Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad (supra) also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with a suit premised on the tort of defamation. While dismissing the suit, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed, as under:
"7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation, in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by communication of thought and Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.10 of 19
information from one to another. Where a person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus, the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.
8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the words in a manner in which the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff has to plead that the libel was understood by the readers with the knowledge of subject or extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff."
17. In Kamlesh Sherawat (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, was dealing with an appeal, arising from a suit premised on the tort of defamation. While finding the pleadings made in the plaint of the suit to be perfunctory, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed, as under:
"12. It may be mentioned that a lot of the time of the Court is wasted when such pleadings are made and are put to trial and which trial, owing to the inherent weakness in the pleadings, is bound to fail. The time of the Court is not to be Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.11 of 19
wasted in such matters, which appear to have been filed not with the intent to get any relief or for adjudication of any bona fide dispute but only to be used as a process of harassment of the opposite party by engaging the opposite party in litigation.
13. Pleadings of the parties form the foundation of their case on which issues are raised, evidence let in and findings arrived at for deciding litigation. Parties are bound by the pleadings. A case not set up cannot be allowed to be proved. If evidence is let in outside the pleadings it cannot normally be looked into. From the pleadings, the opposite party must know what is the case he has to answer and prove. Otherwise, the rule of pleadings and the provision for amendment of pleadings for deciding the real question in controversy between the parties will become meaningless. Decision of a case cannot normally be on grounds outside the pleadings. It is a case pleaded that alone could be proved. Without the necessary pleadings, relief cannot be granted even if there is evidence.
14. Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491 reiterated that the object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases from being expanded and grounds being shifted during trial. It was held that the object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.12 of 19
the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration. It was yet further held that when the facts necessary to make out a particular claim or to seek a particular relief are not found in the plaint, the Court cannot focus the attention of the parties or its own attention on that claim or relief by framing appropriate issue and the Court, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, cannot grant any relief.
...
16. Inspite of the Supreme Court having held so more than half a century ago and having reiterated the same again in Amanullah Vs. State of U.P. (1973) 2 SCC 81, the pleadings continue to be drafted recklessly and without regard to the requirements of law. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. H.L. Raskaran Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/3459/2011 commented upon the falling standards of pleadings resulting in judicial time being wasted and contributing as one of the many reasons amongst others for judicial delays. It was observed that hours are spent to grapple with the pleadings to understand what the controversy is. Another Division Bench of this Court in Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw Products Limited 87 (2000) DLT 76 observed that only such pleas as give rise to clear and bona fide disputes are triable and not illusory and unnecessary or mala fide untenable pleas, to delay the suit and that if a plea is not valid and tenable in law, the Court would not be bound and justified in framing issue on the Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.13 of 19same thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste of valuable Court time.
17. Though it is also a principle of law that the Court should not dismiss on mere technicality but I am of the view that since, inspite of the Courts having commented repeatedly on the subject such pleadings continue to be brought before the Court, a time has come for the Court to curb the said practice and as aptly observed by the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 and reiterated in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370, by striking down such pleadings, in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation. It was similarly observed in Prabodh Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0061/1984 that from the principle that the Court should not dismiss on a mere technicality or just because a proper relief is not asked for, it does not follow that the Court should condone every kind of laxity in drafting pleadings and which appears to have become a rule rather than an exception. It was held that an illdrafted pleading is an offspring of the union of carelessness with imprecise thinking and its brothers are slipshod preparation of the case and rambling and irrelevant arguments leading to waste of time which the courts can ill afford by reason of their overcrowded dockets."
18. In my view, it follows from the abovenoted judgments (a) that in a suit Civil Suit No.1412/2017 Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Page No.14 of 19premised on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the impugned libel/slander has resulted in lowering of his reputation in the eyes/estimation of his peers, consisting of his friends and family or in the eyes of the general public, consisting of fair and reasonable persons; (b) that in the plaint of a suit premised on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff should plead all relevant particulars, especially the names of his friends, family members or members of general public, in whose eyes/estimation, his/her reputation has been lowered; 3 (c) that in the plaint of a suit for damages, premised on the tort of defamation, the plaintiff should clearly state the different heads (ordinary damages, special damages, aggravated damages etc.) under which, the plaintiff is claiming damages 4 and (d) that if the grievance of the plaintiff is qua words, which have a double meaning, the plaintiff should specifically plead the meaning of the words, as understood by him/her and his peers or the general public.
19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position of law, I will now proceed to give the findings qua the issues framed in this suit, on 16.12.2020.
ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether impugned article published in Mail Today is defamatory to the plaintiff? OPP"
3 The record of this suit shows that the plaintiff had not done so, in the original plaint of this suit. Only when a Ld. Predecessor Judge had brought the said deficiency/anomaly to the knowledge of the Ld. Advocate for plaintiff, on 11.10.2017, the paragraph 15 of the plaint of this suit was amended and the names of Sh. Ajay Sahni and Sh. Jatin Gandhi were brought to the knowledge of this Court and the defendant no.1.
4 In the plaint of this suit, the plaintiff has not done so. Yet, during the hearing of final arguments, on 09.09.2022 and 21.09.2022, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had relied upon the judgment in Rustom K. Karanjia & Ors. v Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and Ors., AIR 1970 Bom 424 and pressed for recovery of 'aggravated damages' from the defendant no.3.Civil Suit No.1412/2017
Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.15 of 19
20. In my view, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because of multiple reasons.
21. Firstly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because the natural meaning of the words, 'Khalistani bigot' is that the person has strong/unreasonable beliefs or opinion about Khalistan or the Khalistani movement and not that the person is in favour of Khalistan or the Khalistani movement and because upon reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, it cannot be inferred that the defendant no.3 (author of the impugned article) intended to say or imply (based on the Wikipedia page, Mark PW1/X2 or otherwise) that the plaintiff is in favour of Khalistan or the Khalistani movement. In my view, the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, at worst implies that the plaintiff is identified as a person, who has strong views about Khalistan or the Khalistani movement, which is a fact situation/position, admitted by the plaintiff, in the plaint of this suit.
22. Secondly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because during his crossexamination dated 30.01.2021, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal has specifically admitted that nobody had/has ever told him that after reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, his/her impression of him, has turned down and because the said admission of the plaintiff, when seen in light of the law of the tort of defamation, as explained by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhartu (supra), Dr. Nidhi Bhatnagar (supra) and Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad (supra), closes the entire issue, raised by way of this suit viz. defamation (lowering of the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of others), on account of publication of the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1.Civil Suit No.1412/2017
Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.16 of 19
23. Thirdly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because during crossexamination dated 27.02.2021, PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni, testifying in sync with the plaintiff viz. PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal, has also specifically admitted that after reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, the reputation of the plaintiff had not gone down in his eyes/estimation and because this Court has no reason to disbelieve the said aspect of the testimony of PW2 Sh. Ajai Sahni.
24. Fourthly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because the testimony of PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi (proffered during crossexamination by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1) to the effect that upon reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, his impression about the plaintiff had lowered, is totally unreliable/incredible. I say so (a) because it has not been supported by the plaintiff himself viz. PW1 Sh. Hartosh Singh Bal, who specifically admitted that nobody had/has ever told him that after reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, his/her impression of him, has turned down; (b) because the said testimony was not a part of the affidavit, Ex.PW3/A of PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi5 and (c) because the sequence of events of 27.02.2021, emerging from a perusal of the report of Sh. Ankur Saini, Ld. Commissioner/Advocate, appointed by this Court to record evidence in this suit and the crossexamination of PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi, does leave an impression that in the admitted conversation that had taken place between PW3 Sh Jatin Gandhi and the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff, on 27.02.2021, after conclusion of testimony of PW2 Sh. Ajay Sahni and before the commencement of examination of PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had tutored/guided, PW3 Sh. Jatin 5 In the said affidavit, where PW3 Sh. Jatin Gandhi had fully liberty express himself, the relevant words used are, "After reading the said article, I called later to express my dismay." In my view, the said words, point towards disappointment and not defamation/lowering of reputation.Civil Suit No.1412/2017
Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.17 of 19
Gandhi to say that upon reading the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, his impression about the plaintiff had lowered.
25. Fifthly, this issue is liable to be decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff because by failing to file the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 qua the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff has rendered it, inadmissible in evidence and in a way, himself incapacitated this Court, from granting any relief, in this suit.6
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff has been unable to prove that the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, had resulted in his defamation.
ISSUE NO.2
"2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages? OPP"
27. In view of the finding given qua issue no.1 viz. that the plaintiff has been unable to prove that the impugned article, Ex.PW1/1, had resulted in his defamation, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover from the defendants, damages of Rs.50,00,000/.
RELIEF
28. In view of the aforesaid findings given qua the issues framed in this 6 In this regard, reference is craved to the judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine SC 571, wherein the Hon'ble Surpeme Court has made it absolutely clear that compliance of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, is mandatory.Civil Suit No.1412/2017
Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.18 of 19
suit, on 16.12.2020, this suit is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
29. Before parting with this judgment, it is clarified that this judgment has been passed, after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal v Badagara Jumayath Palli Dhara Committee and Others, 2004 (7) SCC 708, wherein it has been held that a plaintiff can only succeed on the strength of his case and not the weakness, if any, found in the case of the defendant. Also, it is clarified that an overall assessment of this suit gives an indisputable impression that the grievance of the plaintiff qua defamation by the defendants, does not meet the 'threshold of seriousness', discussed by the Queen's Bench of the United Kingdom's High Court in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd.7
30. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be Digitally signed consigned to the record room. JAY by JAY THAREJA THAREJA Date: 2022.10.18 16:22:34 +0530 Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja) today on 18.10.2022 Ld. ADJ07, South East District, Saket Courts/Delhi 7 In my view, it is high time that we incorporate the said jurisprudence in its original or adapted form, in our jurisprudence qua the law of defamation, lest the day is not far, when every Twitter exchange between litigants (who can afford a luxury litigation like a defamation action) will result in a defamation action, being filed in Courts. In his autobiography, "Before Memory Fades", Sh. Fali S. Nariman has said, "Defamation cases in India are a luxury and a dangerous luxury at that, that they are too often filed in a hurry, and repented only at leisure. And then it is too late. I dissuade clients from filing such actions -- civil or criminal." This suit, clearly reinforces the point made by Sh. Fali S. Nariman.Civil Suit No.1412/2017
Hartosh Singh Bal v Mail Today Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Page No.19 of 19