Delhi District Court
K.R. Chadha & Ors. vs . Y.S. Srivastava on 19 January, 2013
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE01 : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No. 797/11
In the matter of :
K.R. Chadha & Ors. Vs. Y.S. Srivastava
19.01.2013
ORDER :
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application filed u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
2 Plaintiff has filed the present suit for damages for defamation and perpetual injunction against the defendants from publishing any defamatory remarks, imputations, etc in future against the plaintiff in his publication 'Devil's Trumpet' or defaming the plaintiff through any other means / publication. The present application has been filed with the suit seeking a relief of temporary injunction against the defendants from publishing any defamatory remarks, imputations, etc in future against the plaintiff in his publication 'Devil's Trumpet' or defaming the plaintiff through any other means / publication. 3 Plaintiffs are residents, members and office bearers of managing committee of Press Association Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Contd....P..1 of 16 : 2 : (hereinafter referred to as Society) which is a registered society and was originally established for journalists. At present, the residents and members of the society are stated to be consisting of notable and distinguished members including academicians, advocates, businessman, etc.. Plaintiff No.1 is the elected President of the society, plaintiff no.2 is the nominated Secretary of the society and plaintiff No.3 is a Member of Managing Committee of society. 4 The defendant regularly publishes a pamphlet under the name 'Devil's Trumpet' which is circulated by him either personally or through his servants and agents to each and every household of the society apart from other places and to public at large. Plaintiffs have further submitted that the pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' is being regularly published by the defendant in gross violation of the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The defendant is the author, editor, publisher and distributor of his pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet'.
5 Plaintiffs have submitted that in the pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 7th August, 2011, the defendant deliberately and knowingly made and published dates, baseless and defamatory remarks and imputations about the plaintiffs with the intention to defame them and that the defendant made such libeious and sianderous remarks and imputations deliberately to lower the reputations of the plaintiffs in the estimation of their family members, friends, Contd....P..2 of 16 : 3 : members and residents of the society and the general public. 6 The defendant deliberately referred to the plaintiff no.1 as 'Pramsident', falsely alleged that the plaintiff No.1 is arrogant and unjust and a part of 'Besharmi Morcha', called the plaintiff no.1 a 'puppet', falsely stated that "Mrs. Sabharwal (B10) 'bearded" the plaintiff no.1 and called the plaintiff No.1 "Kutte, Haramzade", deliberately imputed allegations that the plaintiff No.1 is not a self respecting person and that the plaintiff no.1 is up for sale; falsely stated that the plaintiff no.1 has been involved in corruption and scam in dealing with the society's fund as one of its office bearer; and made derogatory remarks against the plaintiff No.1 by stating that "God make us Chadhdha. We make ourselves Chadhdhi".
7 Plaintiffs have submitted that the defendant purposefully and knowingly defamed the plaintiff No.2 by making following defamatory remarks in his pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 7th August, 2011. The defendant derisively referred the plaintiff no.2 as "Controller" of the society, falsely stated that plaintiff No.2 "play second fiddle" to other members of society, falsely alleged that the plaintiff no.2 is arrogant and unjust and a part of "Besharmi Morcha", called the plaintiff No.2 "puppeteer", falsely stated that 'Mrs. Ehsan insulted members" of the society; and made derogatory reference to the plaintiff no.2 by calling her the "Chana Monitor".
Contd....P..3 of 16 : 4 : 8 Plaintiffs have further submitted that the defendant purposefully and knowingly defamed the plaintiff no.3 by making following defamatory remarks in his pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 7th August, 2011. The defendant has derisively referred the plaintiff no.3 as the "Chief Cheer Leader" of the society; falsely and purposefully referred to the plaintiff No.3 as the "boss" of the president of the society; falsely alleged that the plaintiff no.3 is arrogant and unjust and a part of "Besharmi Morcha", falsely stated that the plaintiff no.3 is an "ill deserving" member of the Managing Committee of the Society who is "Power drunk" and behaving like "a bull in a china shop", falsely stated that the plaintiff no.3 has insulted the members of the society in AGM; and deliberately imputed false allegations that the plaintiff no.3 is not a self respecting person and that he is up for sale.
9 Plaintiffs have submitted that due to such libelous and slanderous remarks and imputations by the defendant, the plaintiffs have suffered immense loss of goodwill and reputation. The plaintiffs are being looked down upon by the members and residents of the society, their own family members, friends and the general public at large. The credibility and estimation of the plaintiffs have gone down.
10 Plaintiffs have submitted that the defendant in fact has no intention of being apologetic or expressing regrets for his libelous and slanderous action Contd....P..4 of 16 : 5 : and defaming the plaintiffs through defamatory contents of his publication / pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 7th August, 2011. It is submitted that in response to legal notice dated 24.08.2011, the defendant replied the same vide his pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 5th August, 2011, wherein he confirmed and boasted of having publicly defamed the plaintiffs.
11 Plaintiffs have contended that the defendant has no legal right to defame the plaintiffs who are respectable citizens. It is submitted that the defendants by his subsequent conduct also defamed the plaintiffs, and is likely to defame the plaintiffs for which damages may not be adequate remedy. Hence, the present application has been filed for restraining defendant. 12 The defendant filed the reply to the application and has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this short ground that plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the court and have concealed material and relevant facts.
13 Defendant has contended that plaintiffs have made false and concocted allegations so as to mislead the court and plaintiffs do not have any proof / grounds to substantiate their claim in the petition. 14 Defendant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs is highly Contd....P..5 of 16 : 6 : misconceived and more so all the imputations as allegedly made by the respondent are covered under various exceptions of defamation and does not constitute any defamation as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 15 Defendant has submitted that all the alleged defamatory statements are made in connection with the society's governance and such communications are privileged communications so no civil action of defamation will lie. It is further submitted here that there is no communication of the libel. Defendant has submitted that he never attacked personal reputation of the plaintiffs. The defendant raised questions regarding plaintiffs' functioning as office bearers of the society.
16 Defendant has submitted that since various members including the defendant is not satisfied with the working of Executive Committee being headed by the plaintiffs and there is tussle between various members including defendant and plaintiffs qua the issues of society therefore, in these circumstances and keeping in mind the public interest and welfare of the society that the defendant had issued a Word of caution through pamphlet and significant information about the office bearers; to the members of the society who all are having interest in the society and its working.
17 Word of Caution through pamphlet did not in any way lower or cast Contd....P..6 of 16 : 7 : a reflection on the moral or intellectual character of plaintiffs and, therefore, explanation 4 to Section 499 of IPC, which imposes restrictions in the law of defamation, is clearly attracted in favour of the defendant. It is thus, pleaded that in the light of Explanation 4 as well as 5th and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC, the allegations in the suit did not constitute an offence of defamation. 18 Defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as the present application. At the stage of arguments, attention was drawn to the legal notice dated 24.08.2011 written on behalf of plaintiffs to the defendant in respect of alleged acts of defamation. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs invited attention to the reply to the said notice given by the defendant wherein he has accepted a couple of them like calling Mr. Chadha Pramsident / puppet / Chaddhi (which all mean the same, a 'She' man) and labelling Chaddha and company 'Besharmi Morcha'. Defendant has also written that Mr. Chadha does play second fiddle to Mrs. Ehsan and thus fully deserves the epithet and also that defendant is not the first member to call him a puppet. Defendant has also stated that Mr. Chadha has been defaming him since long and uttered not a word of apology when exposed.
19 Ld. Counsel for defendant invited attention to the reply wherein defendant had stated that most of the charges against him are false, mischievous and fabricated. Attention was also invited to the reply where defendant had Contd....P..7 of 16 : 8 : submitted that there were many false allegations against him. It was also stated and admitted that the pamphlet is being published since 2008 and neither the elected members of society nor the residents ever objected to the publishing of the same and rather at times, defendant had received letters of applauses and appreciation from them. A copy of few of them have been filed on the record. Ld. Counsel for defendant read through the contents of the pamphlet bearing the title 'Pramsident's wail and bravado' (hereinafter referred to as 'pamphlet') and submitted that there is no mention of plaintiff no.3 in the whole of the pamphlet. 20 Detailed arguments were advanced.
21 Arguments heard. Record perused.
22 The names of the three plaintiffs are Sh. K.R. Chaddha, Mrs. Sarwat Ehsan and Sh. Bharat Sanghal. Plaintiffs have submitted that defendant deliberately referred to the plaintiff no.1 as 'Pramsident', falsely alleged that the plaintiff No.1 is arrogant and unjust and a part of 'Besharmi Morcha', called the plaintiff no.1 a 'puppet', falsely stated that "Mrs. Sabharwal (B10) 'bearded" the plaintiff no.1 and called the plaintiff No.1 "Kutte, Haramzade", deliberately imputed allegations that the plaintiff No.1 is not a self respecting person and that the plaintiff no.1 is up for sale; falsely stated that the plaintiff no.1 has been involved in corruption and scam in dealing with the society's fund as one of its office bearer; and made derogatory remarks against the plaintiff No.1 by stating that "God make us Chadhdha. We make ourselves Chadhdhi". A perusal of Contd....P..8 of 16 : 9 : pamphlet reveals that plaintiff no.1 although has been referred as Pramsident, however, the defendant has not referred to him as 'Kutte Haramzade', rather it is stated that Mr. Chadha's June 30 circular describes how Mrs. Sabharwal bearded him and the Press Enclave 'Controller', Mrs. Ehsan in their 'den' the society office calling them 'Kutte Haramzade'. Thus, it was not the defendant who used these words rather the said words were used by Mrs. Sabharwal and have been mentioned in June 30 circular by Mr. Chadha himself. The said conclusion follows from reading the paragraph where it is written in the pamphlet that 'In the beginning when one queried whether it was stupid of Mr. Chaddha to make his insult public, one meant it.' Read in context of the words used by Mrs. Sabharwal for Mr. Chadha, defendant has used the word 'Pramsident' for Mr. Chadha as a figurative expression / metaphor and cannot be called to be defamatory. Defendant has not used the words 'Kutte Haramzade' for plaintiff No.1 and thus it nowhere signifies that defendant has directly or impliedly referred about plaintiff no.1 to be not a selfrespecting person. Similarly, the defendant in the pamphlet has stated that '......reassuring that all is not lost despite the Manmohan Singhs, Ram Vilas Paswans, Lalu Yadavs et al heavily outnumbering the selfrespecting who aren't for sale whatever the price'. The said statement also has been made in reference of Mrs. Sabharwal that she is selfrespecting and not for sale. Again, these words have not been used for plaintiff no.1 and no corollary follows that defendant has stated that plaintiff no.1 is up for sale.
Contd....P..9 of 16 : 10 : 23 With respect to the title 'Besharmi Morcha', the defendant has stated so in the context of the pamphlet where it finds its mention that Mr. Chaddha, i.e. plaintiff No.1 had stated that he demanded an apology from Mrs. Sabharwal and threatened to resign if it is not tendered by July, 9. However, he did not resign and continued in office even after deadline from apology expired and the same was not tendered. In view of the same, the word 'Besharmi Morcha' has been used which is selfexplanatory in the context in which it is used. It only signifies that defendant is dissatisfied with the running of affairs of the society by plaintiff no.1 and also expressed doubts about the fairness of office bearers of society. However, it nowhere reflects that defendant has stated that plaintiff no.1 has been involved in corruption and scam in dealing with the society's fund. Similarly, the remark 'God makes us Chadhdha, we make ourselves Chadhdhi' again cannot be read in ignorance of the contents of the pamphlet. The defendant in the pamphlet has referred to various incidences and instances whereby the residents of the society have been put to disadvantage, discomfort and also pushed for litigation because of the manner in which the office bearers of the society have dealt with problems of residents. Therefore, the remark referred to earlier does not reveal that plaintiff no.1 has been referred to as 'Chadhdhi' rather the word 'Chadhdhi' seems to have been used in reference to the residents who do not respond as they should when they are put to inconvenience by the office bearers.
Contd....P..10 of 16 : 11 : 24 The defendant has stated "Pride comes before a fall". We all know how the puppet, the puppeteer, the deputy puppeteer and the chief cheer leader have been behaving ever since they took over. The quoted portion of pamphlet does not make any mention of plaintiff no.1 and it cannot be implied that the word 'puppet' has been used for plaintiff no.1. Defendant has used symbolic or figurative expressions, however, many of them have not been made in reference of plaintiff No.1 and also can be stated to be metaphors but not defamatory. In view of these observations, the plaintiff no.1 has failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour.
25 Plaintiffs have submitted that the defendant purposefully and knowingly defamed the plaintiff No.2 by making following defamatory remarks in his pamphlet 'Devil's Trumpet' dated 7th August, 2011. The defendant derisively referred the plaintiff no.2 as "Controller" of the society, falsely stated that plaintiff No.2 "play second fiddle" to other members of society, falsely alleged that the plaintiff no.2 is arrogant and unjust and a part of "Besharmi Morcha", called the plaintiff No.2 "puppeteer", falsely stated that 'Mrs. Ehsan insulted members" of the society; and made derogatory reference to the plaintiff no.2 by calling her the "Chana Monitor". With respect to calling plaintiff no.2 as 'Controller' of the society or she 'Play second fiddle to other members of society', the same are not derogatory in itself and can only be appreciated or condemned when one has insights of the actual working of the office bearers. Plaintiffs have submitted Contd....P..11 of 16 : 12 : that defendant has falsely alleged that the plaintiff no.2 is arrogant and unjust and a part of "Besharmi Morcha". The said submissions are incorrect as the paragraph titled 'Besharmi Morcha' does not refers to plaintiff no.2 being arrogant. It only narrates the incident that Mr. Chadhdha despite stating that he will resign in case Mrs. Sabharwal does not tender apology by July 9 did not tender his resignation and continued. The reference of plaintiff no.2 in the said para is only that filthy and abusive language was used by Mrs. Sabharwal against her and that too was condemned by plaintiff no.1. Thus, the said paragraph nowhere projects plaintiff no.2 as arrogant and unjust. Plaintiffs have submitted that defendant has referred about her as 'The puppeteer'. As observed earlier, the defendant has stated "Pride comes before a fall". We all know how the puppet, the puppeteer, the deputy puppeteer and the chief cheer leader have been behaving ever since they took over. The quoted portion of pamphlet does not make any mention of plaintiff no.2 and it cannot be implied that the word 'puppet' has been used for plaintiff no.2.
26 Plaintiffs have also stated that Mrs. Ehsan insulted members of the society. In the pamphlet, it is written as 'Ms. Smita (C21) and her parents were insulted by Mrs. Ehsan and that too in Mr. Chadhdha's presence who almost ignored it'. The said paragraph does not talk of conduct of Mrs. Ehsan generally and Mrs. Ehsan insulted Ms. Smita and her parents only talks of one incidence and it is not a generalised statement of her being in habit of insulting members of Contd....P..12 of 16 : 13 : society. Reference to plaintiff no.2 as 'Chana Monitor', the same can be understood when read in the context of the story narrated by defendant in the pamphlet. He has narrated as 'There were three monitorships in the class - class, sports and chana. The first two went to those with a good academic and sports record. The chana monitorship went to the rowdiest in the class. This monitorship had three distinct advantages - eating to one's fill, obliging one's favourites with extra helping and ruling over the docile'. Defendant has submitted that 'But this does not mean that one wants them out. Nor does one grudge them their juice. No, they are free to continue for we do need chana monitors. The only thing that members want is that 'they' or rather 'she' behaves'. Thus, the said expression reflects dissatisfaction with the working of the office bearers of the society which the defendant has substantiated by referring to telephone bills scam, overcharging for E7 which she had to refund, raising of periphery wall despite timely objection, Mrs. Ehsan keeping the water tank of residents full but the other day ordering 50 water tankers in just 5 days and thus revealing that all these things cost money to members of society. Thus, the expressions used by the defendant are not defamatory but explanatory of conduct of office bearers of which two are plaintiffs no.1 & 2. The defendant has nowhere made any comment much less defamatory with respect to personal reputation of plaintiffs no.1 & 2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs had specifically stated that the suit has been filed by plaintiffs in their personal capacity and not as officiating members of the society. However, the plaintiffs have been described in Contd....P..13 of 16 : 14 : the plaint in their officiating capacity and as observed earlier, the defendant has made no personal remarks with respect to plaintiffs no.1 & 2 and has only expressed dissatisfaction with respect to their conduct as office bearers. 27 On perusing the whole pamphlet, I find no mention of plaintiff No.3, although plaintiffs have submitted that defendant referred the plaintiff no.3 as the "Chief Cheer Leader" of the society; falsely and purposefully referred to the plaintiff No.3 as the "boss" of the president of the society; falsely alleged that the plaintiff no.3 is arrogant and unjust and a part of "Besharmi Morcha", falsely stated that the plaintiff no.3 is an "ill deserving" member of the Managing Committee of the Society who is "Power drunk" and behaving like "a bull in a china shop", falsely stated that the plaintiff no.3 has insulted the members of the society in AGM; and deliberately imputed false allegations that the plaintiff no.3 is not a self respecting person and that he is up for sale. Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the imputations are not direct but are implied from the contents of the pamphlet even in absence of name of plaintiff no.3. The said submission in itself reveals that there are no prima facie averments against plaintiff no.3 in the said pamphlet. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour. Further, the defendant has been publishing the pamphlet since 2008 and at times being appreciated by the plaintiffs and for more than four years, the plaintiffs have never objected about the publishing and circulation of the same, thus reflecting laches on their part.
Contd....P..14 of 16 : 15 : Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd. Vs. Zee Telefilms Ltd., AIR 2005 Delhi 195, observed by referring to decision titled Fraser Vs. Evans & Ors., (1969) All E.R.8 as 'The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory when the defendant says that he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest.' The defendant in the present matter has also submitted that whatever he has stated or published has been published in public interest and are his fair comments with respect to mishandling of affairs of society by the office bearers i.e. plaintiffs.
It was also observed as "There are some things which are of such public concern that the newspapers, the press and indeed everyone is entitled to make known the truth and to make fair comment on it. This is an integral part of the right of free speech and expression. It must not be whittled away." Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the settled legal position is that where truth, justification and fair comment are pleaded, there is to be no prior restraint on publication unless the court can find it to be a case of malafides. In the facts of the case I find no malafides attached with defendant.
In the matter of Khushwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 58, the court vacated the injunction granted against the defendants from publishing, circulating or selling the autobiography pertaining to the respondent and her family by observing that "The reason is because the Contd....P..15 of 16 : 16 : interest of the public in knowing the truth outweighs the interest of the plaintiff in maintaining his reputation."
28 In view of these observations, the present application filed u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is dismissed and interim order dated 16.11.2011 is vacated. 29 Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to expression of this court on merits of the case and shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and liabilities of the parties, which are to be decided on merits. 30 To come up for replication, admission / denial of documents and framing of issues on 06.03.13.
Dictated and announced in the open court on 19.01.2013 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) ADJI(South) Saket Courts 19.01.2013 Contd....P..16 of 16