Delhi High Court
Shri Ajay Aggarwal vs Shri Vinod Mehta, Shri A.K. Warrier, The ... on 11 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 102(2003)DLT774, 2003(66)DRJ183
Author: R.C. Chopra
Bench: R.C. Chopra
JUDGMENT R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This suit for the recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 10,05,500/- and mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff, an IPS Officer, against the defendants who are the Chief Editor, Printer Publisher, Staff Reporter and the owner of the newspaper "The Pioneer".
2. The defendants were appearing in the suit and had filed their written statement also. However, on account of non-appearance, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 31.8.1999. In his ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff has filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of Shri M.B. Kaushal.
3. The averments as contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a 1996 Batch officer of Indian Police Service. The defendant NO. 1 is the Chief Editor of the newspaper "The Pioneer", the defendant No. 2 is its Printer/Publisher, the defendant No. 3 is its owner and the defendant No. 4 is the Staff Reporter. It may be mentioned here itself that defendant No. 4 has not been named and has been sued only in the name of Staff Reporter on the ground that his name is not known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that in the Delhi Edition of the newspaper "The Pioneer" a new item appeared on 10.7.1992 which read as under:
"DCP accused of preventing dowry victim's post-mortem Staff Reporter New Delhi CAN THE formality of a post-mortem be waived in a case where a young married woman was 'electrocuted'.
This is exactly what happened in January 1984, when at the instance of then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Ajay Aggarwal, a post-mortem was not conducted on the body of Ms. Anjali Gupta.
The DCP's role in effectively preventing the post-mortem Metropolitan Magistrate J.P. Sharma delivered his judgment acquitting Anjali's husband Sunil Kumar Gupta from the charge of dowry harassment.
Mr. Sharma wrote in his order that the "post-mortem examination was not conducted with regard to the dead body of Ms. Anjali Gupta because of the instruction of DCP Ajay Aggarwal".
Mr. Aggarwal is presently a Deputy Inspector General of Police with the National Security Guards.
However, Mr. Sharma's order does not castigate the police for not performing the post-mortem.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, a lecturer in Law Faculty, was charged by the Kingsway Camp police for harassing his wife for dowry.
They had got married in December, 1982 and were staying in Model Town."
4. The said news items was alleged to be maliciously false and highly defamatory in as much as it suggested as if the plaintiff was responsible for scuttling and thwarting the lawful investigation in the matter of the death of a dowry victim. The said new item was based upon a judgment dated 9.7.1992 passed by Shri J.P. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate by which the accused were acquitted as the prosecution version was shrouded in doubts. However, the report published by the defendant gave an impression to the general public and was an innuendo as if the plaintiff had wrongfully prevented the post-mortem of the dead body and the Court had indicted him for misdemeanour. Infact in the judgment dated 9.7.1992, nothing was stated against the plaintiff. In para 2 of the judgment merely the allegations made by the prosecution were referred to. The plaintiff alleged that the reporting by the defendants could not be termed a fair reporting by any stretch of imagination and it had the tendency to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the right-minded members of the society and calculated to hold the plaintiff to hatred, contempt and ridicule.
5. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff quoted the reporting made by "Indian Express" also on 11.7.1992 which correctly depicted the judgment. The plaintiff vide a letter dated 31.7.1992 addressed to defendant No. 1 protested against incorrect, unfair, malafide and defamatory reporting and asked him to register his protest and clarify the position so that the things were straightened. However, instead of clarifications, the defendant No. 1 only chose to publish an extract of his letter as under:
"Not Indicted Sir - I would like to refer to the new item captioned "DCP accused of preventing dowry victim's post-mortem" (The Pioneer, July 10) The report is factually incorrect because its reading reflects as if I, as Deputy Commissioner of Police, was solely responsible for not permitting the post-mortem to be conducted on the body of Ms. Anjali Gupta who died of electrocution on February 11, 1984. Since I was neither present in the Court at the time when Mr. J.P.Sharma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, pronounced the judgment on July, 9, nor had I received a copy of the judgment, I was unable to contradict the report. However, now that I have received the same, I find that the magistrate has nowhere indicted me for any act of commission or omission on my part to stall the post-mortem.
Ajay Agarwal New Delhi.
Editor's note: Our report was base don the Judgment."
6. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants instead of tendering an apology or clarifying the news item dated 10.7.1992, repeated their defamatory report by printing below the plaintiff's letter in their newspaper dated 17.7.1992 an Editor's note re-asserting that their report was based on the judgment. It was alleged that the defendants were absolutely callous and careless in the matter of printing the aforesaid reports and as such, had presented the plaintiff in a very poor light before the general public, his superiors, associates, friends, acquaintances and relations. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 10,05,500/- and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to withdraw their news item dated 10.7.1992 and the editorial note dated 31.7.1992.
7. The defendants in their written statement raised various pleas and pleaded that the news item dated 10.7.1992 was based on a judgment dated 9.7.1992. It was denied that the report was wrong or false or was malafide. It was also denied that it had lowered the reputation of the plaintiff in public eye. It was asserted that the defendants had merely reported the judgment of a Court fairly, honestly and without any motivation. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to damages or mandatory injunction as prayed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the news item dated July 10, 1992 published in the "Pioneer" newspaper circulated by the defendants correctly reported about the judgment dated July 9, 1992 delivered by Shri J.P. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi?
2. In case issue No. 1 is decided against the defendants, whether the news report resulted in defamation of the plaintiff and lowering his dignity, prestige and standing in the eye of the public?
3. Whether the news report was published in good faith and for the public good in the larger interest of the society?
4. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled towards damages and special damages?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, on what amount, at what rate and for what period?
6. Relief.
8. In support of his suit, the plaintiff filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of Shri Mukund Bihari Kaushal, another IPS officer. Both fully supported the plaintiff's case.
9. I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence on record. My findings on the issues are as under:
ISSUE NO. 110. The plaintiff has proved on record as Ex. P-1, the offending news item printed in the defendant's newspaper dated 10.7.1992, in which after a question as to whether the formalities of a post mortem could be waived or not in a case where a young woman was electrocuted the answer was provided by saying that this was exactly what had happened in January, 1984 when at the instance of the then Deputy Commissioner of Police Ajay Aggarwal (plaintiff) a post mortem was not conducted on the body of Ms. Anjali Gupta. In the next paragraph of the report, it was stated that the plaintiff's role in effectually preventing the post mortem came to light when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate J.P. Sharma delivered a judgment acquitting the accused of the charge of dowry harassment. It was further added in this report that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had observed in his order that the post mortem examination was not conducted on the dead body of Ms. Anjali Gupta because of the instructions of DCP Shri Ajay Aggarwal (Plaintiff). A certified copy of judgment has been proved on record as Ex. P-X.
11. A perusal of the judgment shows that the Court did not at all give any finding that the post mortem on the body of the deceased was not conducted under the instructions of or at the instance of the plaintiff. In para 2 of the judgment while discussing the prosecution case, it was mentioned that post mortem examination was not conducted because of the intervention of the plaintiff. This was neither a finding of the Court nor an observation made by the Court but was merely restatement of the prosecution case. However, the defendants while reporting the case in their Newspaper dated 10.7.1992, Ex. P-1, specifically stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had written in his order that the post mortem examination was not conducted with regard to the dead body of the deceased because of the instructions of DCP Mr. Ajay Aggarwal which was a mis-statement. In the para 2 of the judgment even while narrating the prosecution case the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had used the word 'intervention' only and not 'instruction' as reported by the defendants. The plaintiff has proved on record the same news reported by Indian Express also as Ex.PW1/C in which no such observation was made and rather a factual information was given that the Court had disbelieved the prosecution case and the motive for lodging a complaint seven months after the death of Ms. Anjali Gupta was found questionable as the complainant and the accused were on good terms during the period between the death and the lodging of the complaint. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in concluding that the news item dated 10.7.1992 Ex. P-1 published by the defendants in their newspaper was not true or correct reporting of the judgment dated 9.7.1992 delivering by Shri J.P. Sharma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Issue stands answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 212 A bare reading of the news item Ex. P-1 shows that it had put the plaintiff in a poor light and had projected him as a Police Officer who was capable of interfering with the investigations of criminal cases with a view to screen and save the offenders from punishment. The plaintiff being a senior Officer of Indian Police Service (belonging to AGMU cadre) was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police and as such any aspersion on his character was bound to lower his dignity, prestige and image in the eyes of public as well as his superiors and colleagues in the police force. The plaintiff in para 6 of his affidavit has stated that immediately after the publication of the aforesaid newspaper report, he started receiving a large number of telephone calls from the people known to him and he received a call from the then Commissioner of Police Mr. M.B. Kaushal even enquiring about the said report observing that the same was extremely damaging to his character, personality and position. The plaintiff has filed on record an affidavit of Mr. M.B. Kaushal also who has stated that from 1992 to 1995, he was posted as Commissioner of Police, Delhi and on 10.7.1992 when he read the aforesaid newspaper report he got an impression that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had held the plaintiff responsible for preventing the post mortem on the body of a young married woman who was stated to be victim of dowry harassment. He was stated that he telephoned the plaintiff and told him that this report was extremely damaging to his reputation. This witness has also added that after the plaintiff had shown him a copy of the judgment pronounced by the Court, he found that the Court had not recorded any such finding against the plaintiff. He has stated that the aforesaid incorrect report had the potential to damage the service career and future prospects of an officer like the plaintiff. The plaintiff also has stated in his affidavit that the said false and malafide report had held out his character in a very poor light and had caused extremely serious damage to his position in society as well as future prospects as a senior Officer belonging to the service.
13. This Court, therefore, holds that the news item Ex. P-1 had lowered the dignity and prestige of the plaintiff in the eyes of general public as well as his superiors and colleagues and had resulted in his defamation.
ISSUE NO. 3.
14. In their joint written statement the defendants had pleaded that they had no motive or reason to publish a false report and the report Ex.P-1 was based wholly on the judgment and was a factual newspaper reporting. It was stated that it was fair reporting and according to norms required for publishing news reports in newspapers.
15. There is room for doubt that in a democratic set up press is the Fourth Estate and it is its legitimate function to bring to the notice of the general public all that happens around and make reports specially in regard to the lapses in the administration and misconduct of public servants. While making a report about the Court proceedings or judicial orders, however, the press like any other person is under an obligation to ensure that the publication is a substantially true report and is being made in good faith and for public good. Mere belief of the printer publisher that the report is correct would not be a defense unless it is shown that they had acted with due care and caution. A coloured account of judicial proceedings mixed with reporters own observations so as to create an impression as if those observations were also the observations of the Court cannot be protected by the plea of good faith as in the absence of any motive even it falls short of duty of due care and caution. In the present case, as discussed in the foregoing paras, the news item Ex. P-1, was carrying certain remarks directly attributed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereas in fact the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had said nothing in respect thereof. The word 'intervention' used in para 2 of the judgment by the Court while stating the prosecution case was converted into 'instruction' so as to fully nail the plaintiff as a black sheep in the police force who had helped a criminal escape in a dowry death case. This reporting, therefore, was neither true nor in good faith nor in public interest. It was a totally untrue and irresponsible reporting aimed at sensationalising the issue.
16. The lapse of the defendants did not end with printing Ex. P-1 but continued even thereafter, when upon receipt of a representation Ex. PW1/B from the plaintiff the Chief Editor of the newspaper, printed Ex. P-3 to high light the resentment of plaintiff. The defendants chose to print the plaintiffs letter in their newspaper Ex. P-3 but instead of issuing any clarification regarding the mistake in reporting, an editor's note was added saying that their report was based on the judgment. This comment in a way reasserted and repeated what had been reported in Ex. P-1 and caused further damage to the reputation and prestige of the plaintiff. The issue, therefore, stands disposed of by holding that the publication of the report Ex. P-1 was neither true nor in good faith nor for public good and was a factually incorrect report and as such the defendants action was not privileged or protected.
ISSUE NO. 417. The plaintiff has claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 10,05,500/- towards general and special damages for the humiliation suffered by him and the damage caused to his reputation. In his affidavit the plaintiff has given details of his academic excellence and career achievements to show that he is one of the most meritorious officers of the service. The averments made in the plaint and affidavits of the plaintiff and Mr. M.B. Kaushal which have gone unrebutted satisfactorily prove on record that the plaintiff had suffered in his reputation and had fallen in public esteem on account of publication of Ex. P-1 and as such the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 10,05,500/- as claimed. Issue stands disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 518. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the decretal amount. However, Interest @ 12 per cent per annum is awarded in favor of the plaintiff from the date of this judgment till realisation. Issue stands disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 619. Besides claiming damages, the plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to withdraw the statements made by them in their news item dated 10.7.1992 and 31.7.1992, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-3, and also tender unqualified apology. In view of the decision of the foregoing issues an ex parte mandatory injunction is also issued in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to withdraw the news item dated 10.7.1992 and Editor's note dated 31.7.92 clarifying that there was no observation from the Court in regard to the conduct of the plaintiff. An ex parte decree in the sum of Rs. 10,05,500/- is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants 1, 2 and 3 with costs and interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the decretal amount from the date of this judgment till realisation. No decree is passed against defendant No. 4 as the defendant No. 4 is not named and is not a juristic person.
Decree sheet be prepared.