Bangalore District Court
Phaniraj Kashyap vs B.V. Shivashankar on 16 January, 2020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2020.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.3366/2010
PLAINTIFF : Phaniraj Kashyap,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o. Mr.Justice K. Sreedhar Rao,
B-6, Minister Quarters,
Jayamahal Extension,
Bangalore - 560 046,
represented by his Power of
Attorney Holder - K. Vijaya,
aged about 52 years, Wife of
Mr. Justice K. Sreedhar
Rao, Residing at B-6,
Minister Quarters,
Jayamahal Extension,
Bangalore - 560 046.
(By Sri K. Suman, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. B.V. Shivashankar,
Reporter, 'MID DAY'
Bangalore, Mid Day Info
Media Limited, 301, Pride
Elite, 10, Museum Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.3366/2010
2. S.R. Ramakrishna,
Resident Editor, 'MID DAY'
Bangalore, Mid Day Info
Media Limited, 301, Pride
Elite, 10, Museum Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. Suseelan G.,
Major in age,
Printer and Publisher, 'MID
DAY' Bangalore, Mid Day
Info Media Limited, 301,
Pride Elite, 10, Museum
Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
4. Khalid A.H. Ansari,
Chairman, Mid Day Info
Media Limited, Registered
Office: Peninsula Centre,
Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Near
M.G. Hospital, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012.
5. Tarique Ansari,
Managing Director, Mid Day
Info Media Limited,
Registered Office: Peninsula
Centre, Dr. S.S. Rao Road,
Near M.G. Hospital, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012.
6. Narayan Varma,
Director, Mid Day Info
Media Limited, Registered
Office: Peninsula Centre,
Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Near
M.G. Hospital, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012.
7. Nana Chudasama,
Mid Day Info Media
Limited, Registered Office:
Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S.
Rao Road, Near M.G.
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai -
400 012.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.3366/2010
8. Rakesh Jhunjhunwala,
Mid Day Info Media
Limited, Registered Office:
Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S.
Rao Road, Near M.G.
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai -
400 012.
9. Nikhil Khattau,
Mid Day Info Media
Limited, Registered Office:
Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S.
Rao Road, Near M.G.
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai -
400 012.
10. Adille Sumariwalla,
Mid Day Info Media
Limited, Registered Office:
Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S.
Rao Road, Near M.G.
Hospital, Parel, Mumbai -
400 012.
11. Mid Day Info Media Limited,
Registered Office: Peninsula
Centre, Dr. S.S. Rao Road,
Near M.G. Hospital, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012,
represented by its
Managing Director Tarique
Ansari.
(Defendants 1, 3 and 11 by
Sri M.J., Advocate)
(Defendant No.2 by Sri
S.S.S., Advocate)
(Defendants 4 to 10 : Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 24-05-2010
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Damages/Compensation.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.3366/2010
Date of the commencement : 25-02-2014
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 16-01-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 9 years, 7 months, 22 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking damages of Rs.25,00,000/- from the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under -
Plaintiff hails from a highly educated and respectable family. Recently, he is graduated in law from M.S. Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore. He has a distinguished academic record. He was not only good in academics but also excelled in sports and other extra-curricular activities. He has secured a seat for LL.M. Course at Texas Law School in U.S.A. and hence, Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.3366/2010 he is represented by his mother and General Power of Attorney holder who is well aware about the facts of the case. Defendants 1 and 2 are the Journalists by profession. First defendant is the Reporter and second defendant is Editor of the English Daily newspaper MID DAY, Bangalore. Third defendant is the Printer and Publisher of the said newspaper and the same is owned by defendant No.11 - to which, defendant No.4 is the Chairman, defendant No.5 is the Managing Director and defendant Nos.6 to 10 are the Directors. Though plaintiff had performed exceedingly well in his Ninth Semester examination, when his results were announced, he was shocked to find that he had secured only 18 marks in the Code of Civil Procedure subject. After that, he had applied for revaluation, obtained certified copies of his answer sheets and one Dr. T. Subramania, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Law, Bangalore University - who looked into the answer sheets - certified it as one fit for re-valuation. As the plaintiff had secured admission to LL.M. Course, he should have attended the VISA interview at the U.S. Consulate, Chennai by first week of June, 2009. But, Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.3366/2010 as the re-valuation of his answer scripts appears to have not been taken up, having apprehended the possibility of facing the risk of losing admission to LL.M. Course, plaintiff had submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, Bangalore University. After that, the Vice-Chancellor who heard the plight of the plaintiff and being convinced that the grievance of the plaintiff was genuine, called for quick action and ordered for immediate revaluation of the plaintiff's answer sheets. Thereafter, the answer script was revalued and in the revaluation, plaintiff has secured 65 marks in the said subject.
While this was the factual position, as a surprise to the plaintiff, he was informed by his friend - Sanath Kumar Kedilaya that he came across a news report on the internet in the website www.midday.com. After that, plaintiff made enquiries and found that an article was indeed published in the English daily newspaper 'MID DAY' dated 14.5.2009 under the caption - "BU's quickie re-evaluation: 3,000 papers in one week".The said article came to be reported by the first defendant, Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.3366/2010 edited by the second defendant and printed and published by the third defendant. In the said article, it has been reported that plaintiff is the son of High Court Judge Mr. Justice Sreedhar Rao and that of the 3000 Law students who had applied for re-valuation, only the plaintiff's answer script was reassessed and that he had secured 18 marks in a paper but it went up to 65 after re-evaluation and that the plaintiff had flunked in Civil Procedure Code - Theory paper and that University authorities acted fast to declare the plaintiff qualified because of his father's influence and that they even suspect that additional sheets were added when the re- evaluation was done etc. A plain reading of the said article published in MID DAY BANGALORE English daily newspaper dated 14.5.2009 would give an ordinary reader an impression that the plaintiff and his father have misused their status and position and have got the answer script re-valued and that they have also got additional sheets inserted while re-valuation was being done and secured high marks by dubious means. The said article has projected the plaintiff in bad light and demolished the good image and reputation that the Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.3366/2010 plaintiff and his father had built up over the years with their excellent academic professional and personal conduct and character. Many people known to plaintiff called him and enquired about publication of the article. Therefore, the article in question damaged the personality of the plaintiff. It affected the integrity, career and prospects of the plaintiff's father. Defendants 1 to 3 have failed to perform their moral, ethical and legal duties and did not care to question or clarify with the plaintiff before making the said publication. The article published by the defendants is totally false, baseless and imaginary. Publication of the article in question has put the plaintiff to untold mental agony, public shame, humiliation and disgrace. Accordingly, plaintiff got issued notice to defendants 1 to 3 on 18.5.2009 demanding them to publish an unconditional apology to the plaintiff and his father, but, the defendants have not complied with the said demand. As defendants 1 to 3 have committed serious offenses under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Plaintiff has already filed proceedings before the jurisdictional Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.3366/2010 Magistrate and the Magistrate has taken cognizance. Further, plaintiff has filed the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
In the subsequent edition of the MID DAY BANGALORE English Daily newspaper, defendants have admitted their guilt of having grossly defamed the plaintiff without referring the article dated 18.5.2009. Even the said article also is vague and without an apology. The said article discloses that there is no foul play in revaluation and awarding marks to the plaintiff. Further, the said report further discloses that there is no foul play in exercise of discretion and having the paper of the plaintiff revalued with expectation - which shows that defendants have deliberately made gross defamatory statement in their report dated 14.5.2009. The damages sustained by the plaintiff consequent to the defamatory publication, though cannot be calculated in terms of money, is modestly estimated at Rs.1,00,00,000/-. As the defendants are the Reporter, Editor, Publisher and Directors of the MID DAY Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.3366/2010 BANGALORE English daily newspaper, they all are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has confined his claim to Rs.25,00,000/- only. Therefore, plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.25,00,000/- from the defendants.
3. After service of summons, defendants 3 and 11 have filed their written statement and defendants 1 and 2 have adopted the written statement of defendants 3 and 11. Other defendants are placed ex-parte. Defendants 3 and 11 filed their written statement as under -
Suit of the plaintiff is only frivolous, meritless and liable to be dismissed in limine. The allegations in the suit primarily involved around the news article published by the defendants in the MID DAY BANGALORE English daily newspaper dated 14.5.2009. Reading of the article in question would show that the facts stated in the said article were admitted by the officials of the University and the plaintiff himself. Bangalore University is the Statutory Body under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. University has floated its own rules and Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.3366/2010 regulations while undertaking revaluation activity. Though around more than 3000 students had applied for revaluation and waiting for the results, plaintiff's results were announced much earlier - whereas, results in respect of others were declared later. Plaintiff, who had secured 18 marks in Ninth Semester LL.B. Course in the subject - Code of Civil Procedure paper obtained 65 marks on revaluation. What has been pointed out in the Article is that the plaintiff's paper was revalued out of turn and there was pressure from the Vice- Chancellor of the Bangalore University for undertaking revaluation and incidentally, it is reported that the paper re-valued out of turn was that of the plaintiff who indeed is the son of the Sitting High Court Judge. The University has floated certain norms and illegalities have crept in the process of revaluation. In fact, there is no attempt on the part of the defendants to defame the plaintiff and his family members in any manner. In fact, the said article is merely to highlight the illegal actions of the Bangalore University. The said article is not defamatory as falsely alleged in the suit. Therefore, question of defendants having defamed the plaintiff or Cont'd..
- 12 - O.S. No.3366/2010 his father does not arise. Defendants are the employers and officers in the reputed daily newspaper - which is known for accurate report of the news items and impartial report of the events. When it is found that the Statutory Body like Bangalore University has floated the procedures in the process of revaluation, a news daily is duty-bound to reveal the same to the general public. Hence, the defendants have discharged their duty by publishing the article dated 14.5.2009. The said article speaks of the conduct of the University, but not of the plaintiff or his father. When defendants applied for information under the Right to Information Act, the University has suppressed the information and has given misleading information. But, some information which is furnished clearly indicates truth of the publication. It is stated that the revaluation work was commenced on 2.5.2009, ended on 22.5.2009 and marks cards were sent on 10.7.2009. Answer script of the plaintiff shows that one Dr. T. Subramania has certified that the Code of Civil Procedure answer script is fit for revaluation. But, it is learnt that contrary to the normal procedure, the same Dr. T. Subramania has Cont'd..
- 13 - O.S. No.3366/2010 subsequently revalued the answer script of the plaintiff
- though his subject of expertise is Public International Law and he has not taught the Code of Civil Procedure. It is learnt that the marks card was issued to the plaintiff on 6.5.2009 i.e., one day after revaluation carried. When defendants sought information from the University under the Right to Information Act, names of the person who revalued, who tabulated the marks for preparation of the marks card, date of issuance of marks card are suppressed by the University - which leads to one inference that the revaluation was not done in the normal course. As per the list of examiners prepared by the University Dr. T. Subramania is not part of the list of examiners for the Code of Civil Procedure paper. Though University contends that revaluation work was commenced from 2.5.2009, notification for appointment of Dr. T. Subramania was issued only on 14.5.2009 with approval of the Vice- Chancellor on 13.5.2009 - which also shows that till 14.5.2009, the co-ordinator was not appointed for undertaking the revaluation work. However, surprisingly, plaintiff's answer script was revalued Cont'd..
- 14 - O.S. No.3366/2010 before even the Co-ordinator/custodian was appointed by the University. Though plaintiff has contended that the Vice-Chancellor has power under Section 15(1)(3) and (5), the University has stated that the Vice- Chancellor has not exercised power under Section 15 of the Universities Act - which completely belies the veracity of the plaintiff and shows that re-valuation of the plaintiff's paper was taken up out of turn contrary to the rules and regulations of the University in order to dish out a favour to the student in question and the same has been characterized in the article. Therefore, the article in question cannot be termed as defamatory. It merely conveys the maladies in public institutions like Bangalore University. The article in question speaks of the conduct of the University, but it does not in any manner seek to defame the plaintiff or his father. When plaintiff and the University came out with clarification, the same has been published on 22.5.2009
- which shows that the news daily has reported both sides of the story in an unbiased manner and there is no intention to defame any person. Even the Criminal Contempt Proceeding initiated against the defendants Cont'd..
- 15 - O.S. No.3366/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is dismissed on 11.11.2010 and the Hon'ble High Court has taken a view that the article was bona fide, it is in the public interest and the same does not constitute Contempt of Court. Averments of Para 5 of the plaint are not known to the defendants. Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Averment that plaintiff had secured only 18 marks in the Code of Civil Procedure and he obtained certified copy of his answer sheet on 19.2.2009 is a matter of record. Averments of Paras 6 and 7 that Vice-Chancellor has exercised power under Section 15(1)(3) and (5) of the Universities Act and ordered for revaluation of the plaintiff's paper shows that only the plaintiff's paper was subjected for revaluation by allegedly exercising emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor, but it is not stated as to whether other mandatory provisions of Section 15 are followed by the University. Therefore, it is denied that the Vice- Chancellor has exercised his extra-ordinary powers. Averments of Paras 10 and 11 that the articles published by the defendants would give an impression that the plaintiff and his father have misused their Cont'd..
- 16 - O.S. No.3366/2010 status and position, are all false and misleading. Averments of Para 12 of the plaint are also false and denied. If any shock or dismay to the plaintiff, is only due to the sensitivity of the plaintiff - for which, defendants are not responsible. Averments that after publication of the article in question, the people known to the plaintiff started questioning him about his conduct and academic capabilities, are all false and denied. Averments of Para 13 to 17 of the plaint are also false and denied. Averments of Para 18 of the plaint that defendants had admitted their guilt of having grossly defamed the plaintiff, are false. Averment that defendants have published the article dated 22.5.2009, is true and correct, but the averment that the said report is clarificatory report and it discloses that there was no foul play in revaluation of the paper and awarding marks to the plaintiff is false. The said report contained the facts stated by the plaintiff himself. Averment of Para 19 of the plaint that the MID DAY BANGALORE English daily newspaper has circulation throughout the State of Karnataka, is true. But, the averment that article dated 14.5.2009 is Cont'd..
- 17 - O.S. No.3366/2010 defamatory, is false and denied. Averments of Para 20 of the plaint that plaintiff moderately estimated damages at Rs.1,00,00,000/- is wholly false and unsustainable. It is true that defendants 4 to 10 are the Directors of the MID DAY BANGALORE Infotech Media Limited, but they are not the necessary parties to the suit. Averment that defendants 1 to 3 are the employees of defendant No.11, is true. But, the second defendant is no longer in the service of defendant No.11. Averments that act of defendants 1 to 3 is grossly defaming the plaintiff; it was a wrong committed by the defendant in the course of employment, are all false and denied. Article published by the defendants are not defamatory. Hence, defendants are not liable for any loss or damage.
Averment that plaintiff has got issued notice dated 9.3.2010, is the matter of record. But, contents of the notice are wholly untenable. Averments that plaintiff has to incur heavy expenditure for prosecuting several cases before several Courts, is false. Averments that defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Cont'd..
- 18 - O.S. No.3366/2010 Rs.25,00,000/- as damages, is also false and denied. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the basis of the above facts, the following Issues have been framed -
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the article dated 14.05.2009 published in MID DAY English newspaper was false imputation made against the plaintiff and it injured the reputation of the plaintiff and it is defamatory in nature (libel)?
2. Whether the defendants prove that the article dated 14.05.2009, published in MID DAY English newspaper was true fact and made in good faith and honestly?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.25.00 Lakhs as damages as sought for and from whom?
4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not properly Cont'd..
- 19 - O.S. No.3366/2010 valued and the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient?
5. What Order or Decree?
5. In support of plaintiff's case, plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.16 on his behalf.
6. On the other hand, defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.6 on behalf of the defendants.
7. Heard arguments. Perused records.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - Partly in affirmative and partly in negative;
ISSUE No.3 - Partly in affirmative and partly in negative;
ISSUE No.4 - Negative;
ISSUE No.4 - As per final order;
for the following -
Cont'd..
- 20 - O.S. No.3366/2010
REASONS
9. ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2 : Since both these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that he completed 5 years BAL.LL.B. degree from M.S. Ramaiah College of law, Bangalore; when he was in final year BAL.LL.B., he had secured a seat for LL.M. Course in Texas Law School, U.S.A.; in Ninth Semester examination, he did well in all the subjects, but when results were announced, he was shocked to find that he was secured only 18 marks in the Code of Civil Procedure subject; thereafter, he had applied for revaluation and obtained certified copies of the answer sheets on 19.2.2009; in the first week of June, 2009, he was expected to attend VISA interview - for which, he needed all the marks cards, but though he waited for 2½ months for his revaluation results, re-valuation of the plaintiff's answer scripts appears to have not been taken up and having apprehended the possibility of same being neglected by Cont'd..
- 21 - O.S. No.3366/2010 the University and consequently facing the risk of losing admission to LL.M. Course, he filed representation to the Vice-Chancellor; accordingly, Vice-Chancellor called for quick action; thereafter only, plaintiff's answer script was revalued and revaluation so done indicates that plaintiff has secured 65 marks in the said subject; but, in article appearing on the website viz., www.midday.com - which was published by MID DAY English daily, a report was published under the heading "BU's quickie re-evaluation: 3,000 papers in one week"
stating that as the plaintiff is son of the High Court Judge Mr. Justice K. Sridhar Rao, out of 3000 students who had applied for re-evaluation, only plaintiff's answer script was reassessed and the plaintiff had scored 18 marks in a paper but it went up to 65 after re-evaluation and that the plaintiff had flunked in Civil Procedure Code - Theory paper and that University authorities acted fast to declare the plaintiff qualified because of his father's influence and that they even suspect that additional sheets were added when the re-
evaluation was done etc., - which is a gross defamatory contents of the article directly referring to the plaintiff Cont'd..
- 22 - O.S. No.3366/2010 and his father which are all false, baseless and imaginary; due to the said article, plaintiff has suffered mental agony, public shame, humiliation and disgrace;
he is highly disturbed and depressed; it has caused great harm to his image, reputation and social standing;
accordingly, he got issued notice dated 18.5.2009 demanding the defendants who are the reporters, publishers of the said article seeking an unconditional apology; but, instead of publishing unconditional apology, they issued a vague clarificatory report in the MID DAY BANGALORE English daily dated 22.5.2009 without asking apology.
11. With regard to status of the defendants as reporter, editor etc., of the MID DAY BANGALORE, is not disputed. Even the defendants have admitted about publication of the article in the newspaper which are marked as per Exs.P.2(a) and Ex.P.16(a). Only question before us is, as to whether the said article marked at Ex.P.2(a) has caused any defamation to the plaintiff and his father and the said article published by the Cont'd..
- 23 - O.S. No.3366/2010 defendants is true fact and the defendants have made the same in good faith and honesty.
12. Plaintiff's Counsel has argued that though in contempt proceedings marked at Ex.D.3, Hon'ble High Court has held that the said article is not calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by the Court of justice; it may be merely defamatory attack on the judge, the same cannot be called as contempt of Court; in the said judgment itself, Hon'ble High Court has given liberty to the plaintiff and defendants and his father to take action under the general law for defamation for causing defamation; therefore, the judgments of the Contempt proceedings by the Hon'ble High Court will not come in the way of plaintiff claiming damages for defamation and as the article published by the defendants regarding plaintiff's father making influence to the Vice Chancellor of the University and suspecting about adding additional sheets to the answer sheets of the plaintiff, and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they made enquiry regarding the Cont'd..
- 24 - O.S. No.3366/2010 said allegations made by the plaintiff and his father;
therefore, the same amounts to defamation to plaintiff and his father; accordingly, there is sufficient evidence to show that defendants have caused defamation to the plaintiff. In support of his said argument, he has relied upon the following judgments -
(1) ILR 2013 KAR 4163 [B.M. Thimmaiah -
versus- Smt. T.M. Rukmini and others] -
"It is not necessary, in the instant case, to deal with the inference that a layman, having knowledge of the allegations would make, as the allegations are rather clear and direct. The test to be applied for determining the question whether a statement is defamatory is to be found from the answer to the question "would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society?". If the answer is yes, then it has to be held that the statement is defamatory."
(2) (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 171 [S.K. Sundaram : In Re.] -
"G. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 499 - Defamation
- Where an attack on a Judge is libellous, though does not amount to contempt of Cont'd..
- 25 - O.S. No.3366/2010 Court, held, it would be open to that Judge to proceed against libeller in an appropriate action - Tort - Libel."
(3) ILR 2001 KAR 4142 [J. Sudhir Chandrashekhar -versus- T. Lokaprakash] -
"SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION - Publishing highly defamatory matter in News-Paper without verifying the truth and opposed to journalistic ethics - Plaintiff is entitled to damages - Reversing the decree of the Trial Court, damage of Rs.25,000/- awarded."
(4) (2016) 7 Supreme Court Cases 221 [Subramanian Swamy -versus- Union of India, Ministry of Law and others] -
"E. Constitution of India - Art. 19(2) - Criminal defamation - Word "defamation" in Art. 19(2) cannot be construed in association with succeeding expression "incite to cause an offence" by applying rule of noscitur a sociis - That word in Art. 19(2) should not be narrowly construed -
Defamation has its own independent identity and law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the time when the Constitution came into force - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 409 - Constitutional Cont'd..
- 26 - O.S. No.3366/2010
Interpretation - Subsidiary rules of
interpretation - Noscitur a sociis - Words and Phrases - "Defamation", "incitement", "incite to cause an offence".
13. On the other hand, defendants' Counsel has filed written argument stating that the Hon'ble High Court in the contempt proceedings marked at Ex.D.3 has held that the report is published only with an intention to expose the irregularities of the Bangalore University, once again this Court cannot hold that the said report caused defamation to the plaintiff; therefore, there is sufficient material to show that the article published by the defendants is with regard to true facts and made in good faith; accordingly, it cannot be held that the report published by the defendants has caused defamation to the plaintiff. In support of his said argument, he has relied upon the following judgments -
(1) (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 641 [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and others -versus- Union of India and others] -
Cont'd..
- 27 - O.S. No.3366/2010 "Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of the press - Court's duty to protect - Utility of the press."
(2) (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 632 [R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and another - versus- State of T.N. and others] -
"Constitution of India - Arts. 21 and 19(1)(a) & 2 - Right of privacy vis-a-vis freedom of Press - Proper balancing between the two necessary - Publication of life story or biography of a citizen exposing misdeeds of some public officials - Remedies available in case of infringement of right of privacy - Right of privacy - Held, implicit in Art. 21 -
Broad principles laid down; further development to be case-by-case - Publication of any matter concerning
privacy of a citizen's own as well as of his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing, education etc., without his/her consent would entitle him/her to damages, except where the publication is based on public records including Court records, provided it does not pertain to any female victim or sexual assault, kidnap, abduction etc. - However, publication relating to acts of conduct of public officials in discharge of their official duty, unless Cont'd..
- 28 - O.S. No.3366/2010 shown to have been made in reckless disregard for truth, would not entitle the officials to invoke right of privacy and claim damages - Nor the Govt., local authority and other organs and institutions exercising governmental powers entitled to sue for damages - Nor can the Govt. or its officials impose any prior restraint on publication of the matter in question - relevance of English and American cases - Impact of Arts. 19(1)
(a) and (2) on Ss. 499 and 500, IPC not considered - Tort Law - IPC, 1860, Ss. 499 and 500."
(3) 1974 RLW 215 [Bala Ram -versus- Sukh Sampatlal] -
"Tort - Libel - Damages - General damages and special damages - Where plaintiff has not pleaded special damages he cannot lead evidence to prove same - Plaintiff a broker in sale and purchaser of land likely to suffer in business and entitled general damages though his customers may be few and transactions at long intervals of time."
14. On perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff and D.W.1 and arguments of the Counsel to the parties, it appears that as rightly held by the Hon'ble High Court Cont'd..
- 29 - O.S. No.3366/2010 of Karnataka in the Contempt Petition between the same parties, there is some evidence regarding irregularities by the Bangalore University authorities and with the intention to expose the said irregularity, the defendants have published the article in question. However, with regard to the allegation of the plaintiff about causing defamation to the plaintiff and his father by making allegations about the hurried re-evaluation of the plaintiff's answer sheet by influencing the University authorities and expressing suspicion about adding additional sheets to the plaintiff's answer sheet at the time of re-evaluation, is concerned, the defendants have not produced any evidence to show that before making such publication they made proper enquiry and after obtaining sufficient material about the truthness of the said fact they published the said report. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the judgment reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4142 [J. Sudhir Chandrashekhar -versus- T. Lokaprakash] at Para 18 that when there evidence of publication of defamatory statements and defendant sets up the defence of justification, plaintiff is not required to prove the falsity Cont'd..
- 30 - O.S. No.3366/2010 of the statement and malice. Malice is legally presumed and the defendant has to plead and prove the truth of the defamatory words and not merely his belief in their truth. Therefore, here in this case, when defendants admitted about publication of the report as per Ex.P.2(a) in which allegations are made about re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the plaintiff in a hurried manner by making use of the influence of the plaintiff's father - who then was working as High Court Judge and also about the suspicion, regarding adding additional answer sheets to the answer sheet of the plaintiff at the time of re-evaluation, the burden lies on the defendant to plead and prove the truth of the said allegations made against the plaintiff and his father. But, the defendants have not produced any evidence to show that they made enquiry about the truthness of the allegations made against the plaintiff and his father and adding additional sheets to the answer sheet of the plaintiff at the time of re-evaluation - which goes to show that the defendants have published an article as per Ex.P.2(a) without making any effort to find out whether the said allegations are true or not. Therefore, it appears that Cont'd..
- 31 - O.S. No.3366/2010 plaintiff's contention that the allegation made in the newspaper of the defendants as per Ex.P.2(a) was false imputations made against the plaintiff. Therefore, it caused injury to the reputation of the plaintiff and defendants have failed to prove Issue No.2. Hence, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered as above.
15. ISSUE No.3 : Plaintiff claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages. However, as rightly contended by the defendants' Counsel, there is no any proper evidence to quantify the damages caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, by looking to the social status of the plaintiff and nature of defamation, if an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is awarded as damages, the same is sufficient. Hence, it is decided to award Rs.10,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff payable by defendants 1 to
11. Therefore, Issue No.3 is answered as above.
16. ISSUE No.4 : Though defendants have contended that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient, by looking to the plaint it appears that plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.25,00,000/- andon Rs.25,00,000/-, he paid the Court fee. Hence, the said Cont'd..
- 32 - O.S. No.3366/2010 contention of the defendants is incorrect. Therefore, Issue No.4 is answered in negative.
17. ISSUE No.5 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues in both the suits, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost.
Defendants 1 to 11 are jointly and severally directed to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment of entire amount.
Draw decree accordingly in both the suits.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of January, 2020.) (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 33 - O.S. No.3366/2010
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Phaniraj Kashyap 25-02-2014
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Notarized copy of G.P.A. Ex.P.2 : MID DAY English daily dated 14.5.2009;
Ex.P.2(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 : Office copy of the legal notice. Exs.P.4 to : Postal acknowledgements.
P.10 Exs.P.11 : Unserved postal covers. to P.13 Exs.P.14 : Office copies of legal notices dated and P.15 19.3.2010 and 18.5.2009. Ex.P.16 : MID DAY English daily dated 22.5.2009;
Ex.P.16(a) : A relevant portion marked in Ex.P.16.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : B.V. Shivashankar 14-02-2019
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of order sheet in C.C. No.17204/2009.
Ex.D.2 : Copy of the judgment reported in ILR 2011 KAR 2347.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of the order passed in CCC (Crl.) No.8/2009.
Ex.D.4 : Endorsement issued by the Bangalore University dated 20.9.2010.
Ex.D.5 : Letter dated 23.1.2008 of the Bangalore University.
Ex.D.6 : Endorsement dated 21.5.2010.
(MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..