Bangalore District Court
Dr. K. Ullas Karanth vs Mr. K.B. Ganapathy on 24 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH-31)
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
-: PRESENT: -
SRI.MAANU K.S., B,Sc., LLB.,
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
O.S.NO.6543/2004
PLAINTIFF : Dr. K. Ullas Karanth,
S/o Dr. K. Shivrama Karanth,
Aged about 56 yrs.,
Director-Centre for Wildlife
Studies, 823, 13th Cross,
Jayanagar 7th Block West,
Bengaluru-560 082.
(By Pleader M/s.Holla &
Holla, Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Mr. K.B. Ganapathy,
Editor & Publisher,
Star of Mysore & Mysore
Mithra,375, 'Fourth Estate",
8th Cross, 9th Main Road,
K.C. Layout, Mysore-570 011.
2. Mr. C.P. Chinnappa,
Printer, Mysore Mithra &
Star of Mysore, 15, C & E 1,
Bannimantap,
Mysore-570 015. (Since dead
ordered to be deleted.)
3. M/s. Academy Newspapers (P)
Ltd., 15, C & E 1, Industrial A
Layout, Bannimantap,
2 O.S.No.6543/2004
Mysore-570 015.
Rep.by its Director.
4. Mr. H.S. Muralidhara,
Reporter, Star of Mysore &
Mysooru Mithra, Brahmin's
Street, Hunsur-571 105.
5. Mr. K.B. Mahantesha,
Reporter, Star of Mysore
and Mysooru Mithra,
Opp. Private Bus Stand,
Madikeri-571 201.
6. Mr. M.R. Shivanna,
Asst.Editor, Mysooru Mithra,
15, C & E1, Industrial A Layout,
Mysore-570 015. (Since dead
ordered to be deleted.)
(By Pleader Sri. GSB, Adv.for
D1 and D3 to D5. D2 & 6
abated.)
DATE OF INSTITUTION 30-08-2004.
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Suit for Damages.
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.)
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE 18-07-2012
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 24-04-2018
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
13 07 24
(MAANU K.S),
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
3 O.S.No.6543/2004
JUDGEMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment to plaintiff towards damages and to grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claming through or under them from writing, printing, publishing or circulating any false or defamatory articles about the plaintiff, to grant an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender an unconditional written apology to the plaintiff and publish the same prominently in the first page of the newspapers Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore and directing the defendants to remove/expunge all the articles published about the plaintiff from the internet web site of Star of Mysore.
2. The following are the brief and relevant facts leading to the plaintiff's case:
a). It is pleaded that the plaintiff is an internationally reputed wildlife scientist, who has published over 50 scientific articles in international scientific publications of repute such as proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, US; Journal of Zoology, London; Ecology; Journal of Animal Ecology, Conservation Biology and in books 4 O.S.No.6543/2004 published by Cambridge University Press, Columbia University Press and Island Press; he has also authored/edited two scientific books in English and two popular books in Kannada; his expertise in wildlife sciences has been recognized nationally and internationally and has held the professional positions such as Sr. Conservation Scientist with the wildlife conservation society, New York;
Scientific Fellow of the Zoological Society of London and Adjunct Associate Professor- University of Minnesota, USA; member of the Board of World Wildlife Fund India and Steering Committee of Project Tiger and a former member of both the Indian board for Wildlife and Karnataka Wildlife Advisory Board; he also serves /has served on the editorial boards of reputed scientific journals like Animal Conservations; Oryx; Journal of Bombay Natural History Society and Conservation and Society; he is the Director of Centre for wildlife studies and has been internationally recognized for his expertise on tiger and prey ecology and pioneered advanced research techniques such as radio telemetry and camera trapping in India.
b). It is further pleaded that since 1986, the plaintiff has carried out studies in tigers and their prey in several Indian Wildlife reserves including Nagarahole, Bhadra, Bandipur and Kudremuch, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam, Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh; he has also implemented a major conservation project titled 5 O.S.No.6543/2004 Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project in collaboration with the Karnataka State Forest Department from 1998-2001 and the organizations with which he is associated, gave vehicles, equipments and other material assistance worth about Rs.1.2 Crore to the Government of Karnataka to assist the management of four wildlife reserves in Karnataka and his scientific and conservation achievements have received world wide attention through print media and television. It is further pleaded that he hails from a reputed family of Karnataka and is the son of famous literary and cultural icon of Karnataka, Jnanapeetha award winner, Padmabhusan late Dr.K. Shivarama Karanth and has got international good reputation all over the world.
c). It is further pleaded that the defendant No.1 is the editor and publisher of English daily newspaper Star of Mysore and Kannada daily Mysooru Mithra, defendant No.2 is the printer, defendant No.3 is the owner, 4th & 5th defendants are the reporters and 6th defendant is the Asst. Editor and the newspaper Star of Mysore is published from Mysore and has circulation throughout the State, including Bengaluru and the said newspapers are also published on-line via world wide web and can be viewd form readers all over the world. It is further contended that one Mrs. Anita Arekal, who is the Deputy conservator of Forests, has colluded with the defendants with the malafide intention of defaming the plaintiff and she was quoted extensively in 6 O.S.No.6543/2004 various articles which are published by the defendants. It is further contended that purely out of his concern for wildlife conservation, going well beyond his professional responsibilities as a scientist, the plaintiff has been in his personal capacity advising and assisting several conservation advocacy groups and individuals who are fighting for the cause of wildlife conservation in Karnataka and the non- government organization, 'Wildlife First' based at Bengaluru, to which he is the scientific advisor has been at the forefront of conservation battles against vested interests and lobbies connected with timber exploitation and mining, as well as against a few corrupt officials in the forest department who covertly support such vested interests for obvious benefits to themselves.
d). The plaintiff further contended that some of the wildlife conservation groups with which he is associated have over the years, exposed some of the officials of the Forest Department and also the mining Companies since they were suppressing the truth about the forest fires in Nagarahole and conniving at denuding of timbers in the forests; these conservation groups had to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Lok Ayuktha of Karnataka in order to prevent denuding of trees in the forest, stoppage of mining operations and about the massive corruption and dereliction of duties on the part of some of the officials in implementation of Rs.38 Crores World Bank Project at 7 O.S.No.6543/2004 Nagarahole and the complaints were investigated by the Loka Ayukta and formed an opinion that the complaints of these conservation groups were substantially correct and the said facts were not to the likings of some of the officials in the Forest Department, the members of these groups became the targets of a vilification campaign by these officials and one of the forest officials' viz. Mrs.Anita Arekal, whose various acts of omission and commission had been questioned by him and his associates and who was under a threat of disciplinary action, because of a complaint filed by these groups, has been upset with him and his associates and she has been targeting these groups including the plaintiff and harassing them in several ways who was also in the habit of repeatedly leaking false stories about the plaintiff and his other conservation activities.
e). The plaintiff further contended that because their commercial interests were adversely affected by all the conservation actions of the plaintiff and his associates, the timber and mining lobbies in Karnataka and a few of their henchmen within the forest department have been making attempts to spoil the plaintiff's reputation and damage his public credibility by deliberately planting stories in the media and in the recent past, such attempts have taken the form of release of official press notes to the media, selective and malafide leaking of official 8 O.S.No.6543/2004 correspondence, malicious doctoring of such documents, circulation of illegally obtained personal mails, and granting of interviews to hand picked media personnel, in a calculated manner aimed at defaming the plaintiff and his associates. It is further contended that although most reputed newspapers have ignored the campaign of calumny of these vested interests, the defendants have been repeatedly publishing false and defamatory articles about the plaintiff with the intention of ruining his reputation irretrievably which were published from Mysore, Chamaraja Nagar, Mandya and Madikeri between them, having substantial circulation in these region and also circulated in Bengaluru and other places in Karnataka.
f). It is further contended that since "Star of Mysore" is also published on-line via the World Wide Web, its contents which could be viewed by readers all over the world using the internet, including Bengaluru, they enhanced their potential for defamatory attacks on the plaintiff and by making the false information of Mrs. Anitha Arekal as their source, the defendants have falsely published statements in daily newspaper Mysore Mithra dtd.3-7-2004 that the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Mudigere, had issued an arrest warrant against the plaintiff and his associates for illegal entry into the forest for conducting research which was a false complaint lodged by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Smt.Anita Arekal against the 9 O.S.No.6543/2004 plaintiff and others before the JMFC Court, Mudigere alleging trespass into Kudremukh National Park. It is further pleaded that the aforementioned article published by the defendants also claims that the plaintiff and others had obtained anticipatory bail in the Chikmagalur Court in the above case which was a false statement as the plaintiff has not obtained any anticipatory bail and the defendant No.1 has deliberately published these false statements to create a false impression in the minds of the readers of the newspapers that the plaintiff is guilty as charged, even though he is innocent and in the said article a highly defamatory statement made by the same Deputy Conservator of Forests Mrs. Anita Arekal has been quoted that the plaintiff and his associates had cheated foreign institutions by falsely claiming the forest departments' resettlement schemes as their own which are false as the plaintiff never claimed anywhere that the forest department's work as that of himself and his associates. The plaintiff has further contended that he has not cheated any foreign agency by such misrepresentation and the concerned donor agencies, 'Save the Tiger Fund of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation' based in Washington DC, and 'Global Tiger Patrol' in their letters dtd.10-2-2003, 7-4-2003, 5-4-2004 and 10-3-2003 have categorically stated that the tiger conservation projects conducted by the plaintiff's associates supplement the conservation efforts of others and are meant to foster conservation 10 O.S.No.6543/2004 leadership in the non-governmental sector and these letters also clearly affirm that there has been no fraudulent claims by the grantees i.e. the plaintiff's associates and in fact considers these grantees to be examples for others.
g). It is further contended that by repeatedly publishing these highly defamatory statements in their newspapers, the defendants have deliberately cast aspersions on the honesty and integrity of the plaintiff and have spoiled the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of his friends, relatives, acquaintances and of the general public; in the same article, the defendants have made further false claims that the JMFC Court, Mudigere had conducted a trial and issued warrants for the arrest of the accused, which trial has not been conducted and the same was stayed by the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Chikmagalur. It is further pleaded that the defendants have deliberately repeated these false statements to create an impression amongst the readers that the Court of law had tried the plaintiff and his associates and thereafter issued a warrant for their arrest and thereby tarnished and ruined the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff.
h). The plaintiff further contended that in another article published in Star of Mysore, a sister publication of Mysooru Mithra on 3-7-2004, the defendants have again published similar false and defamatory statements about the plaintiff aimed at defaming the plaintiff in the eyes of 11 O.S.No.6543/2004 English language readers and in this article, despite being fully aware that the plaintiff is a qualified wildlife biologist with a Ph.D. Degree having international reputation, the defendants have referred to the plaintiff as "the so called wildlife researcher", thereby belittling the qualifications and reputation of the plaintiff and the article further falsely claims that the plaintiff's research resulted in the death of many tigers in Nagarahole in the nineties which is wholly false and baseless as the research conducted by the plaintiff did not cause death of any tigers and the defendant newspapers had published similar false reports in 1990-91 also which was found false as back as in the year 1991 itself in the investigation report submitted by All India expert committee appointed by the Government which had gone in detail into these very allegations and had found that these allegations were totally false and this expert committee report was accepted by the Government and was also published widely in the newspapers at that time and thereafter, the plaintiff continued his research project involving radio telemetry of tigers in Nagarahole until its successful conclusion in 1995. It is further pleaded that even though it was established in the year 1993 itself that these allegations were false and defendants came to know the same in 1993 itself, the defendants have once again started making these false allegations against the plaintiff and in the article in its headlines published that the plaintiff and his associates conducted research illegally 12 O.S.No.6543/2004 within the forest areas without obtaining valid permissions from the Government agencies which are totally false as all research activities were carried out by the plaintiff with permission of the Government; the defendants have willfully published the false allegations made by the said forest official Smt.Anita Arekal in order to deliberately cast aspersions on the plaintiff's conduct and thereby besmirching and spoiling his reputation as a scientist and respected citizen.
i). It is further pleaded that in another article published in Mysooru Mithra dtd.5-7-2004, the defendants have proclaimed in headlines "Bones worth Crores of rupees were missing from the predator centre in Nagarahole" and further in the said article it is alleged that valuable bones of wild animals worth Crores of rupees, collected under the guise of research have mysteriously disappeared raising a suspicion that under the guise of conducting research, someone has committed the heinous crime of smuggling wild animal bones to foreign countries and by linking these two statements to a third statement that according to tribal people, the plaintiff had opened a predator centre in Nagarahole and collected therein wild animal bones for research and other purposes, if cumulatively read together, these statements clearly create an impression in the minds of the readers that the plaintiff had established his own predator centre at Nagarahole under the guise of 13 O.S.No.6543/2004 conducting research therein, that he had collected wild animal bones for research and other purposes and thereafter these bones worth Crores of rupees have disappeared and that the plaintiff is responsible for smuggling these bones to foreign countries. The plaintiff further contended that he carried out legitimate research on food habits of predators at Nagarahole during 1986 to 1995 which work involved the collection and study of skulls from carcasses of prey animals killed by predators in the forest and submitted his reports to the government way back in 1991 and 1995 itself and its results were published in scientific journal and these skulls were always kept in custody of forest department and exhibited in an interpretation centre to the public who visited Nagarahole for many years and he has not at any time established any predator centre in Nagarahole as alleged as the area is a Reserved Forest totally owned by the Government and he further contended that he did not have the custody of the herbivore skulls, which were always in the possession of the forest department all the time and the defendants have concocted the entire sensational story specifically to suggest to the public that the plaintiff is a criminal engaged in smuggling of wild animal bones.
j). The plaintiff further contended that one more article was published on 10-7-2004 in Start of Mysore titled "Tiger Project Director begins probe into missing 14 O.S.No.6543/2004 bones" which claimed that an investigation had begun into the issue of missing bones worth Crores of rupees because of the expose by its sister publication "Mysooru Mithra" and further states that during the investigation it was detected that the record book was not maintained at the predator centre from the date the plaintiff began his work and the investigators had seized documents from the predator centre and the investigation revealed that the plaintiff had managed to get a Range Forest Officer's post to his "driver" one Sri.Ravindra Kumar and then got him posted to Nagarahole, during which period the bones were transported. The plaintiff further contended that all these statements are false and per-se defamatory and deliberately malicious as he had no role to play in the selection of the said N. Ravindra Kumar.
k). It is further pleaded that the defendants have published another article in Start of Mysore dtd.12-7-2004 titled "Ullas Karanth fails to turn up at Hunsur" wherein the defendants have claimed that the plaintiff had been summoned by the forest department, thereby creating the impression that legal summons had been issued to him while in reality no such legal summons was issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the plaintiff who had merely sent letter inter-alia seeking information about the allegations made in the defendants newspapers about the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants in the said 15 O.S.No.6543/2004 article described the plaintiff derogatorily and sarcastically as someone "who claims himself to be a wildlife researcher"
inspite of having knowledge about the researches made by the plaintiff and his achievements and by this, the defendants question the life-long achievement of the plaintiff in the field of research in the conservation of tigers and the same article goes on to further state that "Mr. Karanth, who is now in South Africa, spoke to Dr.Rau over phone this morning and pleaded his inability to appear before him today" which is totally cooked up by the defendants and the plaintiff was not at all in South Africa on the said date and that he did not telephonically speak or pled with the said official Dr. Raju and the defendants have merely concocted this story to lend credibility to their false claims of having unearthed a "scandal" concerning the plaintiff through their investigations.
l). It is further pleaded that the defendants published yet another article on 16-7-2004 in Star of Mysore boldly headlined "Karanth had no permission: DCF"
and in the said article, at the very beginning, the plaintiff is again described in derogatory terms as "so called researcher" and the article then goes on to attribute a statement to the Deputy Conservator of forests Dr. R. Raju that plaintiff was conducting research in Nagarahole without valid permission, and because the area was a national park since 1975, no such permission could have been 16 O.S.No.6543/2004 issued for research on skeletons of wild animals in Nagarahole; it further quotes that show cause notice had been sent to the plaintiff which then goes on to link these allegations about the illegal research to the issue of missing bones raised by the sister publication Mysooru Mithra. The plaintiff contended that the forest department has not issued any such show cause notice to him and by suggesting falsehood, the defendants have defamed the plaintiff once again.
m). The plaintiff further contended that his study of skulls and other aspects of herbivores animals killed by predators in the forests is a standard wildlife research technique employed by Wildlife biologists the world over and he had in fact applied for permission for conducting such a study in Nagarahole through a project proposal submitted to the Government and obtained the permission for conducting such studies from the Government as far as back on 19-3-1985 and has always carried out his research work legitimately and the skulls of herbivores collected as a part of the research were kept in the custody of the forest department and exhibited to the public in Nagarahole and the plaintiff had submitted his reports to the Government showing the data collected from predator kills and therefore, there was nothing illegal or suspect about this entire activity as suggested by the defendants and the derogatory report published by defendants mislead the 17 O.S.No.6543/2004 readers about the plaintiff's bonafides by falsely attributing statements to DCF Hunsur, Wildlife Division, Dr. R. Raju which statements Dr. Raju himself denied as having been made by him which is evident from the above article that defendants have hatched systematic schemes of attributing statements to officials in order to support the false reports published by the defendants and thereby tarnish the image of the plaintiff.
n). The plaintiff further contended that again on 16- 7-2004, the defendants published a similar report in Mysooru Mithra with bold letters titled "No permission from Government: Dr.Raju" which again repeats all the defamatory allegations that the defendants had made in the Star of Mysore article of the same date which further confirms that their motive in publishing the said article was to defame the plaintiff in the guise of investigative reporting by means of a series of articles that rely on false hood, wild conjectures and derogatory with defamatory language which is totally contrary to facts or truth and the malicious articles written and published by the defendants are per-se defamatory. The plaintiff further contended that on 22-7-2004, the defendants once again published an article in Mysore Mithra with headlines "Enquiry begins on Ullas Karanth's research scandals: money flowing from foreign countries swallowed" which goes on to claim that a 'report' to the Government had stated that several 18 O.S.No.6543/2004 organizations led by the plaintiff had committed irregularities and offences and that the investigations had detected that these organizations had acquired properties illegally and in order to sensationalize their false articles, the defendants have claimed that the earlier investigative articles published by Mysooru Mithra have moved the forest department in lightning speed resulting in an enquiry being held by its Director, one Mr. A.K. Garg. It is further contended that the defendants have also claimed that the plaintiff and the organizations with which the plaintiff is associated have hijacked the Government projects which was detected by the Dy. Conservator of Forest and that the plaintiff had been carrying on questionable tiger conservation activities and the same had created doubts and suspicions in the mind of the Government and the tribal people and it also falsely claims that the activities done in the forest by the plaintiff is without any transparency.
o). The plaintiff further contended that on 4-8-2004, the defendants published another article in Mysore Mithra titled "Ullas Karanth faces one more criminal case" and the false and defamatory statements made in the article are attributed to an official named Mrs.Anita Arekal, who is identified as the Deputy Conservator of Forests of Bhadra Wildlife Division who was not the Deputy Conservator of Forests in charge of Bhadra Wildlife Division, but holds the charge of Kudremukh Wildlife Division which clearly 19 O.S.No.6543/2004 demonstrates that the defendants are casual and negligent in stating facts. The plaintiff further contended that this particular official has been filing false cases on non- existent grounds against the plaintiff and some of his associates and these false allegations are repeated in the Star of Mysore dtd.5-8-2004. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants again published another article on 7-8-2004 in Mysooru Mithra under a banner headline "Karanth's fraudulent Documentary film: foreign donor organization cheated out of 1.75 Crore rupees" which quotes a "secret Government report" based on which the defendants say they have published the article wherein it is falsely stated that plaintiff and his seven organizations led by him have claimed to have built 250 houses for tribal people which were in reality built under a resettlement scheme promoted by Central and State Governments and claimed to have spent Rs.70,000/- per family and submitted accounts to "Save the Tiger" and other foreign agencies and obtained money from them and the plaintiff and his associates by making a one hour video documentary have provided it as proof to the said foreign agencies to make them believe that the plaintiff and his associates have built such houses spending the above said amount and that the said foreign agencies have released the money believing the said video documentary. The plaintiff contended that he is not aware of any such secret Government report and he has not claimed that he has built any houses for the tribal 20 O.S.No.6543/2004 people and he has also not submitted any accounts to anyone claiming to have spent Rs.70,000/- per house and has not produced or submitted any documentary film in support of such claims to anyone and the defendants have published the allegations which are patently false and totally defamatory in nature, solely to ruin the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the members of the general public. He further contended that the same report published in the Mysooru Mithra then goes on to state that between 1986 and 1992, when the plaintiff was camping in Nagarahole in the guise of conducting tiger research, one Sri. Gangadhar Rai, Range Forest Officer, had written a letter on 16-3- 1989 to the Asst. Conservator of Forests, Mysore stating that the plaintiff had illegally smuggled out animal horns, bones, skeletons, skin and skulls worth 200 Crore rupees. The plaintiff further contended that the allegations are false and scurrilous and he is not aware about any such letter.
p). It is further contended that on 9-8-2004, the defendants once again deliberately published another defamatory article in Star of Mysore which bears the banner heading "Karanth's fraudulent video claims credit for Government work" and U.S. donor agency pays Rs.1.75 to Karanth and Co." by repeating all the false allegations made earlier in Mysooru Mithra dtd.7-8-2004 and thereby the defendants are becoming more and more brazen in 21 O.S.No.6543/2004 publishing their false and defamatory articles in their newspapers who wrote that the plaintiff is "not only pseudo- researcher, but has committed serious fraud" and they further claimed that it is allegedly based on a report submitted by Smt. Anita Arekal, DCF to the State Government with details and in the said article they further stated that according to the report of Smt.Arekal, "Karanth and his men even went into the shady deals of convincing the tribals to lease out their lands to rich farmers in the neighbouring villages of Tanjalli, Bharathwadi and Hosur and categorically listed the names of several forest officials who have allegedly connived with the plaintiff in smuggling of the animal bones over a 10 year period and all these allegations are totally false and highly defamatory and the plaintiff is not aware of any report to the Government sent by Smt. Arekal.
q). The plaintiff further contended that in view of the hostile attitude of Smt. Arekal towards the plaintiff and his associates, the alleged report sent by her is a false and malicious report and though, the defendants have no right to publish and circulate such falsehoods and allegations against the plaintiff who is a respectable member of the society and an internationally reputed scientist, they have published the above reports and articles with the malafide intention of gaining undue publicity to themselves at the cost of the plaintiff and are 22 O.S.No.6543/2004 making reckless, malicious and defamatory allegations about persons who have status and standing in society. The plaintiff further contended that the articles which have been published have been published knowing fully well that it would harm irreparably the reputation of the plaintiff and the reports have denigrated the plaintiff in the eyes of the public and have maligned him and lowered the prestige, standing and reputation of the plaintiff in the society and the reports have caused great mental pain and agony to the plaintiff who enjoys great deal of reputation in India and abroad as a renowned wildlife biologist and the articles have exposed the plaintiff to public contempt and ridicule and at the time the articles were published the defendants knew that the contents were not only false but would irreparably injure the plaintiff and demean him in the eye of public and that the same would cause great deal of mental agony and anguish to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he is entitled to punitive damages also and since, the loss to the reputation of the plaintiff is incalculable, he tentatively quantified the damages payable by the defendants at Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiff further contended that he learnt that the defendants are intending to publish further articles defaming him. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief damages at Rs.10,00,000/- and for permanent injunction.
23 O.S.No.6543/2004
3. After registration of the suit, suit summons was issued to the defendants. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants have put appearance through their advocate and filed their joint written statement contending interalia that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is a gross abuse of the process of the Court and intended to arm-twist and to harass the defendants. The defendants further stated that the various contentions taken in the plaint are absolutely false, vexatious and misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendants denied that the plaintiff is an internationally reputed wild life scientist and has published scientific articles and had expertise in wild life sciences and have a qualification to hold the professional position in several universities, etc. The defendants denied each and every one averment made by the plaintiff and called the plaintiff for the strict proof of the same as absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious and that the claim of the plaintiff is baseless and not maintainable in law as these defendants at no point of time have denigrated the good name of the plaintiff in the society by way of publication of articles with any malafide intention. They further contended that the said articles were published in good faith based on information provided by the officials of the Forest Department based on the record available with the Forest Department and the proceedings took place in the courts at Chikkamagalur and Mudagere which are true facts.
24 O.S.No.6543/2004
4. The defendants further contended that they being the Editor, Director and correspondents of the leading local newspapers Mysooru Mithra and Star of Mysore, have the right to publish articles and news items as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and as such they have published those true reports based on the information received from forest officials and court proceedings in good faith and the said articles published by them does not come under the definition of sec. 499 of IPC and the suit filed before this court itself is not maintainable as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same under Sec.20 of C.P.C. since the newspapers named Mysuru Mithra and Star of Mysore are printed in Mysore and published only in Mysore, Mandya, Kodagu and Chamarajanagar and therefore the court at Mysore alone has got jurisdiction to try this suit. The defendants further contended that the claim of the plaintiff for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs is absolutely misconceived and without any basis. The defendants further contended that similar subject matter that appeared in the said articles have been published by "The New India Express" news paper and "Agni" bulletin and also telecasted as a news story on the scandal of predator centre in Nagarahole accusing the plaintiff of smuggling the bones of the tiger, etc. by ETV and the articles published by them are true reports of the facts disclosed and reported by the forest department officials such as Mrs. Anitha Arekal, Dr. R. Raju and there are records available in 25 O.S.No.6543/2004 the office of the forest department of government of Karnataka in good faith in the interest of general public and as such the allegations made in the plaint are all absolutely false and misconceived and the suit without impleading all of them as party to the suit is also bad for non joinder of necessary party.
5. The defendants further contended that the articles published relating to the plaintiff are of public concern and on vital issues concerning wildlife and environment and were published in good faith and after publication of the same, the plaintiff is still doing well in his research and other social activities and hence, the plaintiff has not made out a case on merit and is not entitled to seek such relief before this Court and they are not liable to pay the claim of the plaintiff, which is false and vexatious and that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper party. Hence, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions taken by the respective parties in the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed for disposal of the case:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that Defendant No.1 is editor and publisher of news paper "Star of 26 O.S.No.6543/2004 Mysore" and "Mysore Mithra" and that defendant No.2 and 3 are owners of said news paper?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are reporters in said news papers while sixth defendant in the Asst.Editor of news paper Mysore Mithra?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants published articles in "Mysore Mithra" and "Star of Mysore" on 3/7/2004, 5/7/2004, 12/7/2004, 16/7/2004 and 4/8/2004 against plaintiff?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that contents of those articles are per se false and highly defamatory, published with intention to lower the image of plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking people?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction to restrain defendant from publishing articles defaming plaintiff?
6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of forest officials involved in the news?
7. Whether City Civil Court, Bangalore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
8. Whether defendant has justification of publishing news item in good faith for public good?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, how much and from whom?
10. What order or decree?27 O.S.No.6543/2004
7. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.76. In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant no.5 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.8. Thereafter, the case posted for arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments of the counsels for both plaintiff and defendants and perused the materials placed on record.
9. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary and other materials, I record my findings to the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the affirmative.
Issue No.5: In the affirmative.
Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: In the affirmative.
Issue No.8: In the negative.
Issue No.9: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No. 10: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUES NO.1 & 2: It is an admitted fact that the defendant no.1 is the editor and publisher of the news paper named Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore. It is further admitted in the written statement at para 11 that defendants 2 and 3 are the printer and owner of the said 28 O.S.No.6543/2004 newspapers and defendants no. 4 to 6 are the reporters and D.W.1 in his cross-examination has also very clearly admitted that defendant no.2 being a printer of the said newspapers died about 6 years ago. D.W.1 has further admitted in his cross-examination that the 2nd defendant during his lifetime was running the institution as a printer of the said newspapers. Hence, the direct admission made by the defendants in para 11 of written statement and by D.W.1 is sufficient to come to the conclusion that defendant no.3 is the owner of the said newspapers agency. He has also admitted that the defendant no.4, defendant no.6 and himself are the reporters of the said newspapers Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore. It has been further brought to the notice of this Court that the defendant no.2 and defendant no.6 have died long back as could be seen from the order sheet dtd.18-7-2012 and 17-04-2013, wherein the death of both defendant no.4 and defendant no.6 have been reported. Since, this is a suit for damages based on the defamation, the liability being the personal liability and since the plaintiff has not taken any steps against the legal heirs of defendant no.2 and defendant no. 6 stating that the cause of action survived on the legal heirs of the defendant no.2 and defendant no.6 the suit against defendant no.2 and defendant no.6 have been abated long back. But, the plaintiff has not carried out any amendment to the cause title of the plaint. Hence, suit against defendant no.2 and defendant no.6 is to be deemed as 29 O.S.No.6543/2004 dismissed and to that extent, the cause title of the plaint is hereby ordered to be amended. Hence, without much discussion the said issues no.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.3: It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants have published various articles in their newspaper Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore about the plaintiff herein under various headlines which are defamatory in nature which have been published on 3-7- 2004, 5-7-2004, 12-7-2004, 16-7-2004, 4-8-2004 etc.,. The defendants no where in the written statement have denied the said fact of publishing the said articles except having denied that the said articles did not contain any defamatory sentences which has caused serious imputation to the reputation of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, what they have published in the said articles were the true facts and information which they have got about the plaintiff and were published in good faith for the public good and it is the further explanation of the defendants that it is not that they alone have published such articles against the plaintiff, but before they published the said articles, ETV news had telecasted the said program and news papers such as The New India Express have also published such articles and apart from that, the said article has also been published in Lankesh Patrike and Agni magazines and as such, all the said 30 O.S.No.6543/2004 newspapers agencies and medias have published the same articles and therefore, the said articles are not defamatory in nature. Whether the said articles published by the defendants through its newspaper named Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore are in the nature of defamatory or not is a matter to be discussed in the next coming issues and not for the purpose of this issue and the present issue is only a formal in nature and hence, in view of the specific admissions made by the defendants regarding the said publications, there is no need to go deep into the said issue and therefore, the said issue no.3 is also answered in the affirmative.
12. ISSUE NO.7: Since this issue relates to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the said issue is taken first before taking other issues for discussion. It is the contention of the plaintiff that though the defendants are working within the jurisdiction of Mysore City and the said newspaper named Mysooru Mitra and Star of Mysore have been printed in Mysore and are in circulation within the jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mysore, Mandya, Chamrajnagar, Madikeri and Hassan, the articles published by the defendants are also uploaded in the official web site of the defendants, which can be viewed anywhere throughout the world and since the people who recognized the plaintiff are residing all over the world and have gone through the said defamatory statements, which has lowered 31 O.S.No.6543/2004 his dignity in their eyes and since many of the people known to him are residing in Bengaluru also and since he is residing within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru, this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit. He has also contended that the said newspapers are also in circulation in Bangalore region as substantial people travel by train from Mysore to Bengaluru by carrying the newspapers and since the said newspapers are also published on line in their official website, its contents can be viewed by the readers all over the world using internet including Bengaluru and because electronic copies of these papers are archived online, internet search engines can be used to access even older issues from anywhere in the world, thus enhancing their potential for spreading their defamatory statements against the plaintiff throughout the world and therefore this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above suit. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the following decisions:
1. In MANU/TN/3102/2011 in the matter between Shubiksha Trading Services Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Azim H. Premji, wherein at paragraph no.7 it was observed at para no.7. as under:
"It was also contended that the place wherein words were uttered by the respondents was not known to the complainant since the article published in the newspaper did have No. reference to wherein the interview was conducted; that since the interview in which the statement containing imputations was given to a newspaper to be published in its edition that was meant to be read by public and the interview was in fact published in such newspaper in its print and internet edition, any one of the Courts having jurisdiction over any area where the article could have been read as the said place would be the place where the consequences of 32 O.S.No.6543/2004 the Act of making the defamatory statements ensued could entertain the complaint and try the case."
and also held at para no.31 that "It has also been clearly averred the fact that no only in the print but also in the internet edition interview was published. In addition to the same, when a publication is made in the internet edition of a newspaper, anybody at a remote place in the country, at the stroke of a button, may come across the statement and form opinion against the petition. In that sense also, the petitioners have made clear averments regarding the jurisdictional fact to the effect that the publication was effected within the jurisdiction of the Court below and hence, the Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint."
2. MANU/DE/1307/2008 in the matter between Frank Finn Management Consultants Vs. Mr. Subhash Motwani & Anr. Wherein at paragraph no.16 it has been held as under:
"Thus, it stands established that the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi and the magazine has circulation at Delhi and is also put up on the website of the defendants. Even otherwise growing number of readers prefer to read newspapers and magazines via internet rather than in hard form. By putting the magazine on the internet, the magazine cannot be said to be for circulation within Mumbai only and is concluded to be having circulation all over India..... Held the Courts at Delhi even though the same was published in Mumbai have got jurisdiction and held issue no.1 in favour of plaintiffs."
3. AIR 1965 MYSORE 316 in the matter between D. Munirangappa v. Venkatappa.(-regarding cause of auction). C.P.C. S.20(c)- Part of cause of action- Even fraction of cause of action is 'part' of it- Its percentage to whole cause of action is immaterial - only one per cent of cause of action arising within jurisdiction of Court 'A'- Suit can be instituted in Court 'A'.
13. On the other hand, the defendants have specifically contended that the said newspapers which have been published by them are in circulation only in Mysore, Mandya, Chamarajnagar, Madikeri and Hassan and the said 33 O.S.No.6543/2004 newspapers being local newspapers have no circulation at Bengaluru and there are no distribution agencies at Bengaluru and as such, the hard copies of the said newspapers are not at all available anywhere at Bengaluru and the defendants are working for their gain at Mysore and the newspapers are printed and published at Mysore and as such, this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction.
14. However, if the cross-examination of D.W.1 is carefully observed, he has specifically admitted that they have got the website in the internet and the newspaper items which have been published every day have been uploaded in their official website and the said news items could be viewed any where in the world by using the internet. He has also admitted that people who work at Bengaluru who are residents of Mysore, daily while traveling in buses and trains usually carry the newspapers to their office at Bengaluru and go through the said newspapers and people who traveled along with them also view the same by borrowing the said newspapers from the people who are reading and hence, by such circulations also, the people at Bengaluru have also come across the said newspapers items. Even though, this admission may not be of much importance, the fact that the said newspapers have been up loaded in the internet which could be viewed in the internet any where from the world is 34 O.S.No.6543/2004 an admitted fact and now a days electronic media being one of the fastest effective mode of publication and circulation of any news items, viewing the said electronic printed news sitting anywhere in the world cannot be ruled out and therefore this Court assumes the jurisdiction to try the above suit. The principles laid down in the above decisions relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff is also applicable to the case on hand and hence, the arguments of the counsel for the defendant that this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit is ruled out. Accordingly, I answer issue no.7 in the affirmative holding that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above suit.
15. ISSUES NO.4, 6 & 8: Since these issues are interlinked with each other, to avoid repetition of the facts and appreciation of evidence, these issues are taken together for joint discussion.
16. The plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 while reiterating the plaint averments has contended that he is an internationally reputed wildlife scientist having published more than 50 articles in international scientific publications like the National Academy of Sciences, US, Journal of Zoology, London; Journal of Animal Ecology, Conservation Biology published by Cambridge University Press, Columbia University Press and Island Press. He has also stated that he has authored two scientific books in English and two 35 O.S.No.6543/2004 popular books in Kannada and has got expertise in wildlife sciences which has been recognized both nationally and internationally and has been awarded with various awards and positions by various institutions like Sr. Conservation Scientist with the wildlife conservation society, New York, Scientific Fellow of the Zoological Society of London and Adjunct Associate Professor in University of Minnesota, USA, etc. He has also further contended that he is a member of the Board of World Wildlife Fund India and member of Steering Committee of Project Tiger and was a former member of both the Indian board for Wildlife and Karnataka Wildlife Advisory Board. Apart from that he has further contended that he is the Director of Centre for wildlife studies, a research institution recognized by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and affiliated to the Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Deemed University and he has been internationally recognized for his expertise on tiger and prey ecology having pioneered advanced research techniques such as radio telemetry and camera trapping in India. He has further contended that he has carried out his studies on tigers and their prey in several Indian Wildlife reserves, sanctuaries and national parks situated through out India and has received world wide attention through print media like National Geographic Magazine, New Scientist, New York Times as well as television coverage in BBC, PBS, Discovery, National Geographic and Star TV Channels. He further 36 O.S.No.6543/2004 contended that he hails from a reputed family of Karnataka and he is the son of famous literary and cultural icon of Karnataka, Jnanapeetha award winner, Padmabhusan late Dr.K. Shivarama Karanth having good reputation through out the world wide. In support of his contentions, he has produced Ex.P.1 to P.40 which are all the copies of several articles authored by the plaintiff as a research scientist.
17. The plaintiff further contended that he is also a scientific advisor to the NGOs like Wildlife First, etc. and has played a key role in assisting several conservation advocacy groups and individuals who are fighting for the cause of wildlife conservation in Karnataka due to which some of the vested interest involved in Timber lobbying in the national parks and combating pressures that are inimical to wildlife conservation in Karnataka have been waiting for opportunities to neutralize the plaintiff by making false imputations against the plaintiff and thereby to cause defamation to his good reputation and one such Officer was Mrs. Anita Arekal, who happened to be the Deputy conservator of Forests, whose name has been quoted extensively in various articles published by the defendants causing serious imputations to the good reputation of the plaintiff, who has colluded with the defendants with the malafide intention of defaming the plaintiff. P.W.1 has further stated that since the NGO named Wildlife First based at Bengaluru, to which he was the scientific advisor 37 O.S.No.6543/2004 has been at the forefront of conservation battles against vested interests and lobbies connected with timber exploitation and mining, as well as against a few corrupt officials in the forest department by denuding their illegal activities were exposed by him by complaining the same before the Hon'ble Lokayuktha of Karnataka and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the said vested interest and corrupt officials had grudge against him and among them was the said Mrs. Anita Arekal, whose various acts of omission and commission had been questioned by him and his associates and who was under a threat of disciplinary action, intentionally targeted him and his group of NGOs and started harassing him and his associates in several ways by registering false and frivolous cases against him and the said NGOs which supported him. He further contended that the defendants who also colluded with the said Mrs. Anita Arekal have started repeatedly publishing false and defamatory articles against him to ruin his reputation irretrievably without any justifiable reasons and without having any valid source of information.
18. He further contended that in the articles published on 3-7- 2004 in Mysooru Mithra, daily newspaper, the defendants intentionally published the statement that "the Magistrate's Court in Mudigere had issued arrest warrant against the plaintiff and his associates for illegal entry into the forest for conducting research". By relying at Ex.P.41 to 43, he 38 O.S.No.6543/2004 contended that even though no warrant was issued and only summons were ordered to be issued, the defendants intentionally caused publication of articles in Star of Mysore and Mysooru Mitra on 3-07-2004 as "Criminal case filed against Ullas Karanth", aimed at defaming the plaintiff in the eyes of readers and published another article in Mysooru Mithra on 5-7-2004 proclaiming in headlines "Bones worth Crores of rupees were missing from the predator centre in Nagarahole creating impression in the mind of the people that the plaintiff had established his own predator centre at Nagarahole under the guise of conducting research therein and that he had collected wild animal bones for research and other purpose and thereafter these bones worth Crores of rupees have disappeared and he was responsible for smuggling these bones to foreign countries.
19. He has further stated that on 9-7-2004 the defendants have published one more article titled as "DCF's seizure in Kudremukh episode illegal: Court" and that on 10-7-2004 the defendants have published another article in their Star of Mysore titled "Tiger Project Director begins probe into missing bones" and on 16-7-2004 in their Star of Mysore published another article with the headlines "Ullas Karanth fails to turn up at Hunsur" creating the impression that legal summons had been issued to him and he has not responded to the said summons intentionally thereby creating in the mind of the readers of the newspapers to think about him 39 O.S.No.6543/2004 that he is a man of dishonesty and on 16-7-2004 defendants have caused one more article published boldly headlined "Karanth had no permission:DCF" wherein at the beginning of the article he was described in derogatory terms as "so called researcher". He further contended that the defendants again on 16-7-2004 published similar report in Mysooru Mithra with bold letters titled "No permission from Government: Dr. Raju" and once again on 22-7-2004 published another article with headlines with the title "Enquiry begins on Ullas Karanth's research scandals; money flowing from foreign countries swallowed" and again on 4-8- 2004 and on 5-8-2004 defendants caused two more articles titled as "Ullas Karanth faces one more criminal case" and on 9-8-2004 with headline "Karanth's fraudulent video claims credit for Government work, US donor agency pays Rs.1.75 Crore to Karanth & Co." were published as per Ex.P.56 to P.69.
20. He further stated that all the above said paper publications were intentionally caused by the defendants to degrade his reputation in the minds of the right thinking people. He further contended that even though the defendants had the knowledge that the Court at Mudagere had not issued any warrant against him and his associates and even though the defendants had knowledge that the plaintiff was a well known wild life scientist, the defendants intentionally published false statements stating that the warrant has 40 O.S.No.6543/2004 been issued by the Court at Mudagere and by using the word "the so called researcher, Ullas Karanth" they conveyed the message to the society at large to think that the plaintiff has not obtained any such qualifications and he is posing himself to be the said wild life researcher in order to defraud the public at large and by publishing these types of articles his reputation has been seriously prejudiced and in support of his contentions, to prove that his good reputation has been seriously imputed, he has produced the said newspapers cuttings which are marked at Ex.P.56 to P.69. He further stated that the defendant had the knowledge that the plaintiff has not been indulged in any such activities against to the interest of the nation and that he had played an important role in preserving and conservation of wild life and nature and has fought against illegal smuggling activities and played an important role in closing the Kudremukh Iron Ore Mining Corporation Limited which has caused serious damages to the environment, the defendants intentionally without have any justification and without having any supporting documents have caused the above said publication to cause serious prejudice to the good reputation. He further stated that based on the false information given by the said Mrs. Anitha Arekal, DFO, the defendants have caused false paper publication contending defamatory imputation against him without verifying the truthness of the said statements made by her. He further contended that the said Officer had a personal vengeance 41 O.S.No.6543/2004 against him due to the active participation of himself and his associates in stopping the illegal smuggling and closing down the said Kudremukh Iron Ore Limited in Kudremukh National Park region and had questioned her acts in supporting the said interested persons, she had foisted false cases against him and his associates, all of which have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court as per Ex.P.72 to 76 and by relying on these documents, he contended that the publications made by the defendants upon the said oral information alleged to have been taken from Anitha Arekal are all defamatory in nature which have caused serious imputations to his good reputation.
21. In addition to that he has also contended that at no point of time, without obtaining requisite permissions from the Government of Karnataka and other Departments, the plaintiff and his associates have entered into any Forest or Wildlife Sanctuary and have not violated any of the rules and regulations framed under the Karnataka Wildlife Act and Forests Act and in support of the said contentions, he relied upon the documents such as Ex.P.48 to 55 which are the permissions issued by the Government of Karnataka on various dates permitting the plaintiff to conduct study on the Tiger project and other nature related projects at various places of Karnataka and also the proceedings of the Chief Wildlife Warden, where under the plaintiff was given permission to enter the Forests in various parts of the 42 O.S.No.6543/2004 State of Karnataka and to conduct a detail study on various subjects including conservation of Tigers and their prey animals, etc. and by relying on these documents, he contended that at no point of time, he had violated any of the terms and conditions mentioned there under the said permission letters. He also contended that at no point of time, he had established animal predator centre and had not collected any bones and other remains of the prey animals as published by the defendants and the defendants, despite of knowing well that the plaintiff is a well known wild life Scientist having a good international reputation who has dedicated his entire life to preserve the wildlife and natural resources of Indian nature, with an intention to cause serious imputations to his international good reputation have by colluding with some anti-social elements caused said articles published and thereby caused serious imputations to his reputation, for which they are liable to pay the compensation and hence, sought for decreeing the suit and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions:
1. MANU/KA/0344/1999 in the matter between Boregowda & ant. Vs. C.D. Devaiah.
2. ILR 1987 KAR 100 in the matter between A.K.Subbaiah vs. B.N. Garudachar.
3. AIR 1989 SC 714 in the matter between Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry.
4. AIR 2003 SC 3357 in the matter between State of Bihar v.
Lal Krishna Advani.
5. AIR 1961 PAT 164 in the matter between Surendra Nath v. Bageshwari PD.
6. AIR 2002 GAUHATI 75 in the matter between S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kr.Mahanta.43 O.S.No.6543/2004
7. MANU/DE/1785/2002 in the matter between Shri Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Shri Vinod Mehta & othrs.
8. AIR 1927 LAHORE 20 in the matter between Khair-Ud- Din v. Tara Singh.
9. AIR 1929 CALCUTTA 69 in the matter between Subhas Chadra V. Knight & Sons.
10. AIR 1941 BOMBAY 278 in the matter between Mitha Rustomji v. Nusserwanji Nowroji.
11. AIR 2003 AP 254 in the matter between Nicholas Piramal Ltd. v. Cultor Food Science Inc.
12. AIR 1985 BOMBAY 229 in the matter between Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.)Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagmohan.
13. AIR 1969 P & H 201 in the matter between Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram.
14. AIR 1957 NAGPUR 19 in the matter between K.P.Narayanan V. Mahendrasingh.
15. AIR 2006 DELHI 300 in the matter between Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy.
16. AIR 1929 LAH 561 in the matter between Ogilvie v. Punjab Akhbarat Co.
17. AIR 1970 BOMBAY 424 in the matter between R.K. Karanjia v. K.M.D. Thackersey.
18. AIR 1975 MADRAS 309 in the matter between O.Ramalingam v. Director, Daily Thanthi.
22. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the 5th defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 reiterating the written statement averments and stated that whatever publications that have been caused by the defendants were published in good faith on the basis of the credible information which were gathered from the reliable information from the officials of the Forest Department basing on the Government records available in the Forest Department and plaintiff himself has admitted that the Forest Department Officials had initiated certain enquiries against him and his associates and have also lodged charge sheets before the various Courts of Chikkamagalur, Mudigere and based on the said information obtained by 44 O.S.No.6543/2004 them, they have caused the said publications which are all true record of the said informations collected by them and hence, the question of plaintiff claiming the said articles as defamatory nature does not arise and they did not have any malafide intention while publishing the said articles and similar articles were published by The New India Express, Agni and other newspapers and weekly bulletins and said story was also telecasted by ETV channel and the plaintiff has not made any of the said newspapers and TV channels as party to the above suit, neither the plaintiff has made the said Mrs. Anitha Arekal who was the Deputy Conservator of Forests, who according to him had colluded with the defendants to defame him nor the above said news paper agencies and TV channel as party defendants to the suit and as such, the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
23.He further deposed that based on the true information furnished by the said Forest Officer like Anitha Arekal and Dr. Raju and also based on the proceedings taken before the Courts at Mudagere and at Chikkamagalur, the said articles were published by the defendants in good faith in the interest of public at large and the plaintiff is not a qualified Scientist, etc.,. He further deposed that even though the plaintiff is not a qualified Scientist, he has been indulged in giving overdose of tranquilizers to the Tigers, due to which some of the tigers were reported to be dead and the Forest 45 O.S.No.6543/2004 Department officials have suspected that due to the plaintiff's overdose administration of the said tranquilizers some tigers died and there was some investigations conducted by the Forest Department Officials which has been reported by them and there is no such malafide intention to degrade the reputation of the plaintiff. He has further stated that by violating certain terms and conditions, the plaintiff and his associates Mr. Niren Jain were indulged in illegal entry to the Reserved Forests, due to which the DCF conducted the raid at the office of the Niren Jain and seized the materials of the illegal research conducted by the plaintiff and his associates and the said fact was disclosed by the said DCF to the Court and based on the said report, the defendants caused the article dtd.3- 07-2004 and there was no such defamatory contents as alleged by the plaintiff.
24. He further stated that the article published by the defendants on 5-7-2004 about the plaintiff was not only published in Mysooru Mithra, but also telecasted in ETV and the same has been featured on 11-07-2004 and on 25-07- 2004 stating that the plaintiff has set up his own Predator Centre in Nagarahole Park and in this regard, the Deputy Conservator of Forest Dr. R. Raj, Hunsur Wildlife Division has conducted a probe on 29-07-2004 in the alleged missing of skulls and bones of wild animals and plaintiff was asked to appear before the said Officer for the probe, for which one 46 O.S.No.6543/2004 N. Sambakumar, the Program Manager, Research and Training Centre, Wild Life Study, Bengaluru on behalf of the plaintiff has appeared before the DCF and handed over a letter to the DCF on behalf of the plaintiff and furnished a partial and incomplete reply and as such, the said DCF has reported the same to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Wildlife on 20-8-2004 and Field Director of Tiger Project, Mysore stating that the Range Forest Officer, Nagarahole had written to DCF, Wildlife Mysore on 16-3- 1989 seeking his opinion regarding the plaintiff collecting horns of wild animals and skulls saying that the plaintiff had not given any information and all these things were narrated in the report dtd.29-07-2004 submitted by the said DCF and based on the said information of Mrs. Anitha Arekal and Dr. Raju collected by the defendants, the defendants have published a fair and truthful report to the best of their knowledge in the interest of general public and therefore, none of the defendants have done any wrong while publishing the report under the title "Tiger Project Director begins probe into missing bones" and it was a factual report based on the investigation conducted under the instructions of the Field Director vide Letter No.F.C.S.PP GL-1/2004-05 dtd.05/07/2003 and the said Investigating Officer has seized certain documents pertaining to the period for further probe and as such, whatever articles have been published under the title were the true informations received by them which have been published by them and 47 O.S.No.6543/2004 there is nothing which is defamatory and there is no intention to assassinate the character of the plaintiff from the defendants. He has also contended that the articles published by them do not attract any of the provisions of Sec.499 of IPC and therefore, the question of defendants paying any compensation to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs does not arise and hence, sought for dismissal of the same and in support to his contentions, he has produced Ex.D.1 to D.8.
25. If the documents produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P.1 to P.35 are perused, all the documents clearly shows that the plaintiff is the renowned Wildlife Scientist having authored various articles which are published both in international level articles as well as in national level articles and the services rendered by him to the nation is of immense value and by recognizing his professional expertise, various Universities like Manipal University and University of Minnesota have offered him to hold various Honarary posts. Ex.P.36 to P.40 clearly goes to show that plaintiff is fond of preserving and conserving the nature and national resources in the nation and that he has fought for the prevention of pollution to the nature and conservation of the natural resources, Wildlife, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks in and around the State of Karnataka by forming various non-governmental organizations and has been actively indulged in stopping KIOCL at Kudremukh so as to preserve 48 O.S.No.6543/2004 the nature being spoiled/polluted from the industrial wastes that have been generated from the said KIOCL. His research work of Project Tiger and Tiger Conservation Projects in all the four National Parks of State of Karnataka are all of immense help to the human kind and the State of Karnataka to conserve the Tiger's species which were endangered during the said period. The certificate issued by the University of Minnesota and Manipal University and the other articles which have been written by him for various Universities, international journals and medias throughout the World clearly goes to show that the work rendered by the plaintiff in conservation of endangered species of Big Cat called Tiger shows his love towards the conservation of the Tiger species not only in the State of Karnataka, but through out the nation. The documents produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P.44 to P.55 clearly goes to show that the Government of Karnataka and other State Governments inside India have permitted the plaintiff to conduct research work on various National Parks situated within India and his work has been appreciated by all the State Governments including the State of Karnataka.
26.That apart, Ex.P.44 to P.47 clearly goes to show that the work made by the plaintiff and his associates in conservation of Tiger's species and Wildlife including environment has been appreciated by the various International Non-Governmental Organizations. Ex.P.48 to 49 O.S.No.6543/2004 P.52 clearly goes to show that at various point of time, the plaintiff and his associates were permitted to conduct a detailed study on various projects including study of death of few Tigers in National Park including the study of their relationship, if any, with radio collaring and tranquilization, distribution and dynamics of Tiger and prey population in Karnataka, etc. Ex.P.52, 53 and 53(a) documents clearly goes to show that plaintiff and his teams were given permission to enter the Kudremukh National Park so as to investigate the impact of iron ore mining on sediment discharge into Bhadra river and reservoir in respect of the pollutions caused by the KIOCL. Ex.P.54 clearly goes to show that the research made by the plaintiff titled as "Ecology relations and resources use in the Carnivore and herbivore community of Nagarhole National Park" has been appreciated by the State of Karnataka and permission was sought to extend the project through out India under the title "Ecology and Management of Large Carnivore." All these documents clearly go to show that the plaintiff being a Research Scholar about wildlife and conservation of nature and rare species of Tigers in India had a great concern about the nature and the wildlife and to conserve the same, he has dedicated his whole life and thereby has gained the trust of various international and national level authorized, Governmental and non-Governmental organizations which have recognized his potential in 50 O.S.No.6543/2004 conserving the wildlife and nature and has got a good reputation in international level.
27.A perusal of Ex.P.56 to P.69 paper publications published in Star of Mysore and Mysooru Mithra daily articles published in these Kannada newspaper and English newspaper published by the defendants herein goes to show that the defendants have without taking into consideration of the various work made by the plaintiff in conserving the wildlife and the nature and without having due respect to the work made by him have caused the publication of the said articles which are derogatory in nature by enlarging small incidents which have been set at motion by the said Mrs. Anitha Arekal by filing some fake charge sheets against the plaintiff and his associates which have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.P.72 to P.76. If Ex.P.56 which is an article published on 03-07-2004 in Mysore Mithra under the headlines " CPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzÀs£É B ªÀ£Àåfë ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ G¯Áè¸À PÁgÀAvï ¸ÉÃj LªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÆPÀzÀÞªÉÄ. ªÀÄÆrUÉgÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ §AzÀs£À ªÁgÀAmï eÁj". A perusal of the said article clearly goes to show that the defendants have caused the publication of the article in excessive of the information which was available with them and thereby have manipulated to cause an impression in the mind of right thinking people that the plaintiff was indulged in illegal research work by violating the Wildlife Act and that the Forest Department have filed the charge sheet against the 51 O.S.No.6543/2004 plaintiff and his associates and the Courts at Mudagere have caused arrest warrant to arrest the plaintiff and his associates and that anticipating the same, the plaintiff and his associates have obtained anticipatory bail which are according to the plaintiff false and derogatory in nature as the Court at Mudagere had not issued any warrant and the true fact was that the Forest Department had filed some charge sheet against the plaintiff and his associates and the Court had registered the case and issued summons to the plaintiff and his associates. The said Charge sheets which are referred to in the said newspaper have been subsequently quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.P.72 to P.76, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that the said charge sheets were filed by the said Mrs. Anitha Arekal by taking use of her high official position having a personal grudge against the plaintiff and his associates. The said orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly goes to show that the said Forest Department official has foisted a false case out of her personal grudge against the plaintiff. The defendants instead of reporting the true facts have by incorporating some extra informations which were admittedly false as could be seen from Ex.P.41 to 43 wherein the Court at Mudagere had issued summons to the plaintiff and his associates in respect of the charge sheets filed by the said Forest Department Officials, published false articles against the plaintiff stating that court at 52 O.S.No.6543/2004 Mudagere has issued arrest warrant and in the said article also published related facts which were not justified as true facts by the defendants. Had the defendants published a true report of the proceedings of the Court without inserting any additional averments, then such act of the defendants would have been protected under exemptions to the defamation as prescribed under Sec.499 of IPC. But, having knowledge about the plaintiff's immense work in various fields of wildlife and national resources conservations, the act of the defendants in publishing the said articles without taking any adequate precautions which have been published as per Ex.P.57 clearly goes to show that the defendants have been willfully indulged in the act of causing defamation which are derogatory to the international repute of the plaintiff without any justifiable reasons. In the article dtd.05-07-2004 titled as "£ÁUÀgÀºÉÆ¼É '¦æqÉÃlgï ¸ÉAlgï' £À°èzÀÝ PÉÆÃmÁåAvÀgÀ ªÀiË®åzÀ ªÀÄÆ¼É £Á¥ÀvÉÛ" at Ex.P.57, the defendants have gone to the extent of saying that the plaintiff has been indulged in illegal smuggling of skulls and remains of prey animals which have been illegally collected by the plaintiff by establishing his own predator Centre at Nagarhole.
28.The said publication is admittedly not supported by any proof and the same was published by the defendants in its investigating report as could be seen from the subsequent articles wherein it is stated that based on the article 53 O.S.No.6543/2004 dtd.05-07-2004 published by the defendants in both Mysooru Mithra and Star of Mysore, the DCF of Hunsur Division Forest Office has initiated investigation about the said report to verify the truth. However, if Ex.P.54 and its report are perused, which is dated 23-05-1989, the said research regarding the prey animals and collection of skulls and bones of prey animals have been made much earlier to 1989 itself during the study about the Predator and prey animals and all those collections have been properly reported to the Government of Karnataka which has been appreciated in the said report at page nos.7 and 8 and all the said bones and skulls which have been collected were kept in the Nagarahole interpretation centre which was in the custody of the Forest Department and not in the custody of the plaintiff. Hence, the article published by the defendants to the effect that the plaintiff had collected the skulls and bones of the prey animals without permission of the State Government and has been indulged in smuggling these bones to Foreign Countries prima-facie appears to be defamatory in nature which derogates the good reputation of the plaintiff in the mind of the right thinking people.
29. Similarly the other articles published by the defendants on 10-07-2004 in Star of Mysore titled as "Tiger Project Director begins probe into missing bones", wherein the plaintiff was referred to as "the so called researcher" and the allegations against the plaintiff made in the said article 54 O.S.No.6543/2004 also reveals that the said articles are published by the defendants with an intention to assassinate the character of the plaintiff. Yet in another article dtd. 12-07-2004 also the defendants have published one more article titled as "Ullas Karanth fails to turn up at Hunsur", wherein also the plaintiff's character was assassinated by the defendants by making certain false allegations along with using the words "Ullas Karanth who claims himself to be a Wildlife Researcher" in a sarcastic manner by referring certain words which are scandalous in nature against the plaintiff and made false allegations that "Mr. Karanth, who is now in South Africa spoke to Dr. Raju over phone this morning and pleaded his inability to appear before him today" in answer to the summons issued by Dr. Raju. No document has been produced by the defendants to show that the said DCF Dr. Raju had summoned the plaintiff and there are no proof produced by the defendants to show that the plaintiff had been to South Africa and spoke to said Dr. Raju over phone as published by them. The plaintiff has specifically contended that no notice had been issued by the said DCF summoning him to answer the questions to be put to him in the enquiry in respect of the said missing bones and he had not gone to South Africa at any point of time. In view of the denial of the plaintiff about the said issuance of summons, on what basis the defendants have caused such publication has not been properly answered by the defendants. Ex.D.2 produced by the defendants is a report 55 O.S.No.6543/2004 submitted by ACF of Hunsur Division regarding the investigation conducted by him pursuant to the publication of the article by the defendants dtd.05-07-2004 and the said report submitted by him is an incomplete report which only says that further investigation needs to be done to ascertain the truthness about the said article published by the defendants. Hence, the said Ex.D.2 and certain photographs produced by the defendants as per Ex.D.3 which shows that certain bones and skulls were collected in some interpretation which were collected during the early period as early as in 1986-89 which were properly reported to the Government of Karnataka by the plaintiff will not come to the rescue of the defendants.
30. The other defence of the defendants that it is not only the defendants who have caused publication against plaintiff, but the same has also been reported in various other newspapers and medias such as ETV, The New India Express, Agni weekly, Lankesh Patrike weekly does not by itself give justification for the defendants to publish such articles without ascertaining the truth of such news. The further contention of the defendants that without impleading of such newspapers and the media agencies and without making the said Mrs. Anitha Arekal as parties to the above case, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants alone is not maintainable cannot be accepted as it is the prerogative of the plaintiff to sue any person and 56 O.S.No.6543/2004 not to sue any person against the defamatory publications said to have been published by any other newspaper agencies. If the plaintiff wishes to file suit against the defendant alone that by itself will not give the defendants a justifiable reason to make such allegations and to escape from its liabilities. The publication made by the defendants of the defamatory articles give raise to a separate cause of action for the plaintiff to sue against the defendants and if any such articles have been published by any other newspaper agencies, the same gives separate cause of action against the said agencies for the plaintiff to sue against them and it is for the plaintiff to chose to file the suit against such persons. The contention of the defendants that based on the information furnished by the DCF Mrs. Anitha Arekal some of the articles have been published who was a responsible forest department official and as such the suit without arraying as defendant is not maintainable cannot be accepted for the reason that the defendants have not produced any documents to the effect that the articles published by them under Ex.P56 to 69 were true exact report of what the said official has released to any press meet. There is no proof that has been placed by the defendants that the said official had furnished such defamatory statements and no where she has owned her liability except the filing of charge sheets before court at Mudagere. Hence, the participation of the said Smt. Anitha Arekal in the above suit is not necessary. More over she has 57 O.S.No.6543/2004 not released statement in writing and the defendants have not produced any such written information or voice recorded tapes so as to show justification to their publication and to escape from their liability. The defendants being the publishers, editors, owners and reporters of the newspaper named Mysooru Mithra and Star of Mysore holding the responsible position in the said institution are directly liable to answer for any publications made by their news papers which are defamatory in nature against any person including the plaintiff and as such, they cannot disown their liability on the ground that some other newspaper agencies have not been arrayed as parties to the above suit.
31. The further articles published on 22-07-2004 under the title "Enquiry begins on Ullas Karanth's research scandals:
money flowing from foreign countries swallowed" and one more publication dtd.04-08-2004 under the title "Ullas Karanth faces one more criminal case" and publication dtd.07-08-2004 under the headline titled "Karanth's fraudulent Documentary Film : Foreign donor organization cheated out of 1.75 Crore rupees" which have been published by the defendants as per Ex.P.68, P.69 and P.61 clearly goes to show that various false allegations have been made against the plaintiff with the sole intention of defaming the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff by the defendants and all the said articles which have been 58 O.S.No.6543/2004 published by the defendants were published without any documentary proof regarding the allegations made by them in the said articles. On the other hand, the documents produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P.44 to P.47 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff had not been indulged in any such activities as alleged by the defendants in their articles and that the plaintiff has not been indulged in misusing any of the Government sponsored works and also the funds sanctioned by the various Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations. All these documents which have been marked at Ex.P.56 to P.69 are perse defamatory in nature published by the defendants without any proof regarding such allegations and the explanations offered by the defendants are not satisfactory to the Court to come to the conclusion that the defendants have caused publication of a true report of the information which has been received by them. In the cross examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elucidated by the defendants in proving the truthness of the publications made them in the newspapers except the filing of chargesheet against the plaintiff in the court at Mudagere. On the other hand, if cross examination of D.W.1 is perused, he has clearly admitted that at all point of time when he sent reports to 1st defendant through emails, he had not sent any photos which are affixed with the reports in Ex.P.56 to 69 and there is no link between the photos and the reports made by him. He has also admitted that he knew about the research made by the plaintiff 59 O.S.No.6543/2004 about tiger and prey animals. He further admitted he does not know the contents of written statement and the examination-in-chief affidavit filed on his behalf and the information to prepare the same was provided by defendant no.1 who did not step into witness box to face cross examination. Hence no credibility can be attached to the evidence of the D.W.1. Moreover he has admitted that he doesn't know anything about the publications made by the defendants. When he doesn't anything about the said libelous articles, the question of he giving justifiable reasons for the publications does not arise at all and that's what has happened in his cross examination. He has admitted that the bones and skulls of dead prey animals were collected in Nagarahole Interpretation Centre which was in the custody of forest department of State of Karnataka and the said skull and bones were collected way back during 1986 to 1995 when the plaintiff had conducted research on Tigers. All these evidence put together clearly demonstrate that the defendants without making reasonable enquiry about the truthness of the information received by them and without adopting due precautions which a print media has to take care before publishing the defamatory articles and without knowing the reputation of the plaintiff and the service rendered by him have negligently, deliberately caused the defamatory articles published in their newspapers and thereby caused serious imputation on the good reputation of the plaintiff. 60 O.S.No.6543/2004
32.The following decisions relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are clearly applicable to the case on hand as the defendants failed to prove before this Court that the publications made by them are not defamatory in nature and that they have published the substantial truth of Court proceedings without their interpretations or insertions and that they are justified in publishing such articles.
1. In MANU/KA/0344/1999 in the matter between Boregowda & ant. Vs. C.D. Devaiah, it has been held as under:
No person directed to make allegations against another in a bad language which amounts to prima-facie defamation. It is as it is prima-facie defamatory and no further proof necessary and man making such defamation must suffer the damages.
2. In ILR 1987 KAR 100 in the matter between A.K.Subbaiah vs. B.N. Garudachar, it has been held as under:
Under the guise of exposing corrupt practices, statement perse defamatory not excusable in anticipation of plea of justification of truth. Further Held:
Freedom of speech and expression not unfettered to allow defamatory statements injuring reputation based on anticipatory plea of truth and justification and the same is subject to a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. Nobody has got a right to make defamatory statement regarding another merely on the ground that law provides truth or justification as a defence. The plea of justification would come into picture only after speech is made but not before. The reputation is most valuable to any person. It is much more valuable than any amount of money or anything else in the world. Therefore, merely because the defendant wants to plead truth or justification it does not mean that he has got an unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression.61 O.S.No.6543/2004
3. In AIR 1989 SC 714 in the matter between Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry it has been held as under:
Loss of reputation is worse than death.
4. In AIR 2003 SC 3357 in the matter between State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, it has been held as under:
Right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the constitution and is entitled to have and preserve it.
5. In AIR 1961 PAT 164 in the matter between Surendra Nath v. Bageshwari PD, it has been held as under:
Reputation and honour are no less precious to good men than bodily safety and freedom. In some cases, they may be dearer than life itself. Thus, it is needful for the peace and wellbeing of the civilized commonwealth that the law should protect that reputation as well as the person of the citizen.
As a rule an action lies for the malicious publication of statements, which are false in fact and injurious to the character of another within certain limits and the law considers such publication as malicious unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty whether legal or moral or in the conduct of his own affairs, in the matters where his interest is concerned.
6. In AIR 2002 GAUHATI 75 in the matter between S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kr.Mahanta, it has been held as under:
The law relating to defamation is a limitation upon the constitutional Guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press and the vagaries and complex structure of such law.
7. In MANU/DE/1785/2002 in the matter between Shri Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Shri Vinod Mehta & othrs it has been held as under:
News item not correctly reported resulting in defamation of the plaintiff and lowering his dignity, prestige and standing in the eyes of the public- report published not in good faith nor for public good in larger interest of society- suit decreed. Plaintiff entitled to general and special damages together with interest and mandatory injunction to withdraw said news items as prayed.62 O.S.No.6543/2004
8. In AIR 1927 LAHORE 20 in the matter between Khair-Ud- Din v. Tara Singh, it has been held as under:
(b) Tort -Defamation-Journalist publishing defamatory statement is not specifically privileged.
On the contrary he has greater responsibility.
A journalist who publishes untrue defamatory statement against a Government servant, is in the eyes of the law in the same position as any other person... he has a greater responsibility to guard against untruths. ..Publication has farther reach than individual utterances.
(c) In order to succeed upon the plea of justification, the defendants have to prove the whole defamatory matter is substantially true.
(d) In a libel suit no rules can be laid for measuring damages... depends on facts of the case.
9. In AIR 1929 CALCUTTA 69 in the matter between Subhas Chadra V. Knight & Sons, it has been held as under:
Held: Defendant did not prove truth of his allegations... therefore not protected by plea of fair comment... No defence merely that he believed in his own accusations... or had some reasons for making it....or was concerned to support a Government policy a plea of privilege also not available because he was not merely commenting on governor's speech...but making his own allegations of fact against plaintiff as well.
(b) Tort-Defamation- Newspaper has no special privilege in commenting upon matter of public interest.....beyond any other member of community.
10. In AIR 1941 BOMBAY 278 in the matter between Mitha Rustomji v. Nusserwanji Nowroji, it has been held as under:
Burden of proof(b) Defamation-Burden of proof-when defamatory - defendant must prove the truth... Plaintiff need not even prove even malice. Not necessary for plaintiff to prove words are false. If words are defamatory, they are presumed false. ..
(e) ...Newspapers are subject to the same rules as other critics...have no special rights or privileges in spite of latitude allowed to them.... No special right to make unfair comments or imputations upon the 63 O.S.No.6543/2004 character of a person, or imputations upon or in respect of person's profession or calling....
11. In AIR 2003 AP 254 in the matter between Nicholas Piramal Ltd. v. Cultor Food Science Inc. it has been held as under:
(A) Tort- defamation-claim for damages respondent Managing Director of cooperative bank...allegations of malpractices and having illicit intimacy with several ladies...Truth of allegations not established--allegations being per say defamatory, held appellant bound to pay damages.
12. AIR 1985 BOMBAY 229 in the matter between Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.)Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagmohan wherein it has been held as under:
(B) Tort- defamation-Action for libel-Evidence and proof.... In action for libel, it is not a defence to show the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff, if responsible people think... it defamatory of plaintiff. Not necessary that all the world should understand the libel...sufficient if those knowing plaintiff can make out...Question is of ordinary sensible men having the special knowledge would understand the innuendo...Not a defence to say that people would not believe the imputations.
13. In AIR 1969 P & H 201 in the matter between Gurbachan Singh v. Babu Ram, it has been held as under:
Tort-Damages-Duty of newspaper Editor to verify news or information supplied to him before publishing the same in his paper, especially when the news may be of a defamatory nature, because ultimately it is the editor who would be held responsible for publishing any defamatory material in his paper. If he does not do that he has to suffer consequences for his neglect...
14. In AIR 1957 NAGPUR 19 in the matter between K.P.Narayanan V. Mahendrasingh, it has been held as under:
(a) Under common law, newspapers have no absolute privilege with regard to publication of any matter excepting complete and accurate copies of parliamentary papers... (Only) a qualified privilege is accorded to report on the same. Same principle applies to India.
64 O.S.No.6543/2004
(b) Tort-Defamation-Damages: when allegations are defamatory the plaintiff in a suit for the same is entitled to damages even without providing actual loss sustained by him.
15. In AIR 1970 BOMBAY 424 in the matter between R.K. Karanjia v. K.M.D. Thackersey, it has been held as under:
Torts-Libel-qualified privilege-privileged occasion- Fact that subject-matter is of general public importance not sufficient-Party must have duty to communicate to the public.
16. In AIR 1975 MADRAS 309 in the matter between O.Ramalingam v. Director, Daily Thanthi, it has been held as under:
For escaping liability in damages regarding such defamation three tests must be satisfied, namely accurate and faithful publication, general importance of it and absence of animus injurandi. If the impugned publication is proved to be malicious then person responsible for such publication can not escape tortuous liability by claiming qualified privilege.
Hence, based on the above said rulings furnished by the plaintiff's counsel absolutely there is no hesitation for this Court to come to the conclusion that the articles published by the defendants are defamatory in nature which caused serious imputation on the good reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right thinking people and accordingly, I answer issue no.4 in the affirmative, issues no.6 and 8 in the negative.
33.ISSUES NO. 5 & 9: After having answered the issue no.4 in the affirmative and issues no.6 & 8 in the negative holding that the articles published by the defendants are perse false and highly defamatory published with the intention to 65 O.S.No.6543/2004 lower the image of the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking people, naturally the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing such defamatory articles in future against the plaintiff so as to restrain the defendants from further publishing the defamatory articles against the plaintiff without any justification in publishing such news items without any good faith in which public good is not involved and is also entitled for mandatory injunction to remove the articles published against the plaintiff from the internet website of the newspapers and to tender an unconditional apology as prayed.
34. Now the question to be determined is that whether the plaintiff is entitled for any damages from the hands of the defendants and if yes, to what extent and what is the basis for fixing the liability on the defendants to pay such damages for having published such defamatory articles against the plaintiff. It would be relevant to quote the following decisions in this regard so as to ascertain the quantum of damages.
1. In AIR 2002 GAUHATI 75 in the matter between S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kr.Mahanta, it has been held as under:
a. Torts-Defamation case- Criteria for deciding quantum of compensation.
In deciding the question of compensation Court must take into consideration the following things (1) The conduct of the plaintiff 2) His position and standing: (3) The nature of libel: (4) The absence or refusal of any retraction or apology: and (5) The 66 O.S.No.6543/2004 whole conduct of the defendant from the date of publication of Libel to the date of decree.
2. In a decision reported in AIR 1927 LAHORE 20 in the matter between Khair-Ud-Din v. Tara Singh, it has been held as under:
(d) In a libel suit no rules can be laid for measuring damages... depends on facts of the case.
3. In AIR 1985 BOMBAY 229 in the matter between Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.)Pvt. Ltd. v. Jagmohan, it has been held as under:
b. Corporation suing for libel... a trading corporation with a business reputation can file for defamation with respect to a libel calculated to injure its reputation.. may be that innuendo is directed against an individual connected with management of such commercial body... both individual and corporation will have right to sue... if such is the nature of the allegations....
4. In AIR 2006 DELHI 300 in the matter between Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, it has been held as under:
(c) torts-Defendant statements were ex-facie defamatory- It was a case of exceeding limits and showing actual malice- defendant refused to apologies and withdraw his offending statement ...Damages (5 Lacs) awarded to plaintiff.
5. AIR 1929 LAH 561 in the matter between Ogilvie v. Punjab Akhbarat Co. wherein it has been held as under:
Tort-Defamation-measure of damages-Damages entirely discretionary-subsequent conduct of defendant is material-assessing damages.
35. Hence, keeping all the guidelines set out in the above decisions in mind, if the scenario at which the plaintiff's cause is involved in this case is perused, admittedly, the newspapers published by the defendants' agencies named Star of Mysore and Mysooru Mithra are widely in circulation 67 O.S.No.6543/2004 in the form of hard copies in the Districts of Mysuru, Mandya, Chamarajnagar, Kodagu and Hassan and though the newspapers are not State level newspapers, it has got good number of readers in the above said local limits. Apart from that as admitted by the D.W.1 himself, the said newspapers have also got printed and published in electronic media through internet in their official web sites which can be viewed from any part of the world, as such the damage that has been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff is quite more enough. But, since the said publication has not been made in a national level or State level newspapers, the damage caused to the plaintiff's good reputation is not that high when compared to the damage that would have been caused if the same were to be published in a National level and State level newspapers. Taking into consideration the viewership of defendants' newspapers, the quantum of the compensation in the form of damages caused to the good reputation of the plaintiff by virtue of publishing defamatory articles by the defendants will have to be assessed by looking into the assessability of the said newspapers and the viewership of the said newspapers and its circulation and its potential to cause defamatory attacks on the plaintiff in the mind of its viewers. Along with that the conduct of the plaintiff and his position in the society and the nature of the libel that has been published by the defendants and their adamant attitude to tender apology and their conduct in conducting the case also play important 68 O.S.No.6543/2004 role in fixing the quantum of the damages. Looking into all these aspects and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, if the compensation of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is awarded that will meet the ends of justice from the point of view of both plaintiff and defendants. Since the defendants' newspapers have got limited viewership when compared to State Level Newspapers and national Level Newspapers, even though the contention of the plaintiff that it has got its publication through internet and could be viewed from all over the world, the extent of the said newspapers causing damages to the international reputation of the plaintiff is low when compared to the publication of such articles published by some other famous National and State level newspapers agencies such as 'The Hindu, Times of India, Vijaya Karnataka, Prajavani', etc. As such, though the articles published by the defendants are defamatory in nature causing damage to the reputation of the plaintiff in view of its limited viewership within the region in which the plaintiff resides and work for gain, the said compensation which has been awarded by this Court would be sufficient to restore the damage caused to good reputation of the plaintiff as a token of victory against the malafide publications. Hence, with this observation, I answer issue no.5 in the affirmative and issue no.9 in partly affirmative. 69 O.S.No.6543/2004
36. ISSUE No.10: In view of the discussions and reasons stated above and my findings to the above issues no.4, 5 and 9 in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed against defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 and dismissed against defendant no.2 and 6 as abated with costs.
The defendants 1 and 3 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the plaintiff as damages. The defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 are hereby directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment.
The defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 are hereby restrained permanently from writing, printing, publishing or circulating any false or defamatory articles against the plaintiff.
The defendants no.1 and 3 to 5 are directed to remove the defamatory articles published by them against the plaintiff from their official website and shall tender unconditional apology to the plaintiff by 70 O.S.No.6543/2004 publishing the same in the first page of their both newspapers.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE DAY OF 24th APRIL 2018).
(MAANU K.S), XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.71 O.S.No.6543/2004
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W.1 : Ullas Karanth.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
D.W.1 : K.B. Mahantesh.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 to 8 : Publications.
Ex.P.9 : Copy of Way of Tiger Book.
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Monitoring tigers and their prey
Book.
Ex.P.11 : Book - Riding the tiger.
Ex.P.12 : Book-Hunting for sustainability in tropical
Forest.
Ex.P.13 : Book- Making parks work.
Ex.P.14 : Broacher.
Ex.P.15 : Letter.
Ex.P.16 : Letter.
Ex.P.17 : Government Order dtd.20-6-2002.
Ex.P.18 : Government Order dtd.7-1-1998.
Ex.P.19 : Letter.
Ex.P.20 : Letter.
Ex.P.21 to 24 : Recognition documents.
Ex.P.25 : Government Order.
Ex.P.26 to 32 : Letters.
Ex.P.33 : Final report.
Ex.P.34 to 40 : Paper Publications.
Ex.P.41 to 43 : Order sheets in Criminal cases. Ex.P.44 to 47 : Letters.
Ex.P.48 to 55 : Permission Order issued by the Government.
Ex.P.56 to 69 : Paper publications & its relevant entries.
Ex.P.70 : CC of Register No.3. Ex.P.71 : Photo copy of paper publication.
Ex.P.72 to 76 : Certified copies of the Orders passed by Hon'ble High Court.72 O.S.No.6543/2004
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
Ex.D.1 : Letter.
Ex.D.2 : Report.
Ex.D.3 : 20 Photos.
Ex.D.3(a) : Negatives.
Ex.D.4 : Covering letter.
Ex.D.5 to 8 : News paper cuttings.
(MAANU K.S),
XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.