Bangalore District Court
Sri.V.Sunil Kumar vs ) Sri. Yogish Nayan Inna on 7 January, 2023
1
O.S.No. 3999/2020
KABC010145262020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2023.
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.3999/2020
PLAINTIFF : Sri.V.Sunil Kumar,
Aged about 45 years,
Member of Legislative
Assembly (MLA),
Karkal Constituency,
presently stationed at:
No. 435, Legislature House,
Bangalore.
(By S.N.C., Advocate)
VS.
2
O.S.No. 3999/2020
DEFENDANTS : 1) Sri. Yogish Nayan Inna,
S/o Shridhar Aacharya,
aged about 36 years,
Near Lake Kanjar Katte,
Inna Village,
Karkal Taluk - 576121.
2) Sri. Radha Krishna Nayak,
S/o Ramachandra Nayak,
Aged about 34 years,
Hankera Kyar,
Chikkalbettu road,
Hirgan post,
Karkal Taluk.
(Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 04-09-2020
Nature of the suit : INJUNCTION SUIT
Date of commencement of : 11-07-2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 07-01-2023
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
02 04 03
[
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction to 3 O.S.No. 3999/2020 restrain the defendants from making any defamatory statements against him in Social media accounts or any other media of communication and also for damages of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ of 18% p.a from the date of suit till its realization and also for mandatory injunction by way of directions to the defendant No.1 and 2 to offer unconditional apology for publishing the derogatory posting in the social media.
2. It is the plaintiff's contention is that, he is the MLA of Karkala Legislative Assembly Constituency elected from the BJP, in the election held in the month of May, 2019.
3. it is the further contention of th plaintiff that, there was a outbreak of Covid-19 in the country he had taken all the measures to contain the spreading of Covid- 19 as per the norms prescribed by State and Union Government, in-coordination with local administration. And in fact by the time the whole political class working 4 O.S.No. 3999/2020 apolitically to contain the Covid-19 round the clock. But the defendant No.1 herein had posted a several defamatory and derogatory message in his Facebook time line alleging that "in the amidst of Covid pandemic the plaintiff herein with intend to help the persons, who funded for his election allowed the cashew nut factories to open for functioning" and also alleged that the "cashew nuts factories were opening on the instance of the MLA of Karkala, which is like a seeds scheme of MLA of Karkala in the form of Annabhagya scheme of Siddaramaiah". and also alleged that "during the pandemic when the people are struggling for their life, but MLA of Karkala is bothering more on the interest of owners of the Cashew nuts factories". And further alleged that "the MLA of Karkala would uses cashew seeds for his meal in the place of rice". And also alleged that "the MLA has more interest love on the persons who contribute fund for his election then the common people" and also alleged that 5 O.S.No. 3999/2020 "When the poors in Karakala are struggling for their life, but MLA is offering Jasmine flowers to the rich"
4. The plaintiff further contended that, the above messages were published by the defendant No.1 and shared by the defendant No.2, which are derogatory and defamatory in nature, as they are baseless made with intention to damage his reputation in the public life. Which are created bad impression on the plaintiff among the public. Infact the plaintiff acted with responsibly, he has not violated any of the Covid norms nor given any instructions to the local authority to allow the cashew nuts factory owners open their units for function. Which are the scandalous messages circulated to with conspiracy with his political rivals which has created vide range of impact on his public life and they are exceeding the right guarantee under article 19 of constitution. In this regard the plaintiff issued the notice dated 14/07/2020 which were duly served on 22/07/2020 to 6 O.S.No. 3999/2020 the defendants but the defendant neither issued any reply nor offered their apology for their act. Thus prompted the plaintiff to approach this court to seek the relief sought in the suit.
5. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C by seeking ad-interim order of temporary injunction restrain the defendants from publishing or circulating or posting any kind of defamatory messages against the plaintiff in any form of media.
6. After hearing the l/c for the plaintiff on the said application, by considering the fact that the plaintiff made out prima facie case, moreover on prima facie the alleged messages posted in face book time line of defendant No.1 are defamatory and derogatory nature to the reputation of the plaintiff, thus I A. No.1 was allowed by granting the relief sought therein.
7. The suit summons and notice on IA No.1 were 7 O.S.No. 3999/2020 issued to the defendant, which were duly served on them. Upon calling the defendants in open court, they remain absent thus placed them as exparte.
8. The plaintiff led exparte evidence by examining himself as P.W.1, in support of his case, he produced in all 7 documents, which were marked as Ex.P.1 to 7. As the defendants were remain absent, thus cross of PW.1 by the defendants and their evidence were taken as nil.
9. Heard the arguments of L/c for the plaintiff and now the following points arise for my consideration are;
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have posted derogatory and defamatory messages in the Facebook time line of defendant No.1 and they were circulated by the defendant No.2?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have posted and shared the 8 O.S.No. 3999/2020 derogatory messages in the social media, which have caused the damages to his reputation in the public life?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the permanent injunction is requires to be issued to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants are anybody acting under them from posting any kind of false and defamatory statements against the plaintiff in their social media accounts or any other media communication?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the the defendants have published the defamatory and derogatory messages against him in the Social Media Flat form, thus the defendants shall requires to extend their unconditional apology to him?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he
9
O.S.No. 3999/2020
is entitled for the damages of Rs.
10,00,000/- with interest @ 18% for the
publication of defamatory and derogatory messages against him in the social media?
6) What order?
10. My answer to the above points are as under;
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the affirmative
Point No.3: In the affirmative
Point No.4: In the affirmative
Point No.5: In the partly affirmative
Point No.6: As per the final order for the
following
REASONS
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2: Since the both points are
interconnected they are taken up for common discussion.
12. The plaintiff is a MLA elected from the Karkala Constituency held in the month of May 2019 on the 10 O.S.No. 3999/2020 ticket of the BJP party. It is not in dispute that there was Covid out break for the period between March 2020 to December 2021. There were a several Covid guidelines were issued by the central government from time to time to all the State Government in the country, in turn the respective State governments have issued their own guidelines based on the demography and topography, to their respective administrative units through out their state.
12. It is the plaintiff's contention is that he being the responsible elected representative of the Karnataka State, was well aware about his responsibility he was in front line to implement all the guidelines issued by the Central government to safeguard the life of the public. But the defendants herein who with an active collusion with his political rivals of the plaintiff have posted a series of a messages in their Facebook time line alleging that the plaintiff by violating the covid norms, to protect 11 O.S.No. 3999/2020 the interest of the business class, who have contributed for his elections funds, had allowed them to open their Cashew industries to operate. Further alleged that, the MLA has more interest in protecting the interest of the business class than, protecting the lives of public the common man and poor class of Karkala. And, termed his act as nothing but giving of Beeja Bhagya schemes to the public in the line of Anna Bhagya scheme given by government of opposite party. Also stated that his act is nothing but offering a string of jasmine flower to the rich, by neglecting the poor, who are suffering for they daily needs. Further alleged that, the action of the plaintiff is reward to the rich class, against funding for his election.
13. The plaintiff to show the posting of such messages in the face book page of the defendants, produced the Ex.P.1 which is consisting of 5 messages in 5 page. Ex.P.7 which is the 65 B certificate submitted by the plaintiff showing the sources of the documents at 12 O.S.No. 3999/2020 Ex.P.1 have been secured by the plaintiff. If that aspect is considered Ex.P.1 is a primary document. By producing the primary document proved that its the defendants have posted such statements in their face book page.
14. To deny the same the defendants have not appeared before this court. Moreover if the Ex.P.2 notice dated 14/07/2020 is perused in the said notice itself, all the messages posted by the defendants have been printed in color, under which the plaintiff had sought the explanation for publishing such false and derogatory messages. Under which asked the defendants to seek UN-conditional apology and also sought the damages of Rs.50,00,000/-, failed which warned to initiate the criminal and civil proceedings before the court of law. The said notice have been duly served on the defendants for which the defendants have not issued any reply notice by denying the notice averments. If at all the alleged 13 O.S.No. 3999/2020 messages are not posted by them, they would have denied or given explanation, what prompted them make such allegations in their messages. What is the materials available with them to prove their allegations. Made no attempt to clarify the issue. If that aspect are considered the plaintiff proved that it is the defendant No.1 published the messages forthcoming in Ex.P.1 documents and it was shared by the defendant No.2.
15. The next question would be whether the messages posted in the Facebook time line of the defendant No.1 and shared by the defendant No.2 are defamatory and derogatory in nature? If the messages are read in whole the defendant No.1 is trying to convey his grievances that in the amidst of Covid-19, where the life of an human were under threat and put the life of poor class in to full of uncertainty, who were struggling their needs, as the covid restrictions put the human into the literally house arrest. But the plaintiff being the MLA 14 O.S.No. 3999/2020 of the Karkala assembly constituency had allowed the owners of the cashew nut industries to open their factories for which he termed that the act of the plaintiff is nothing but offering a strings of jasmine to rich class to wear, neglecting the life of the poor, who struggling to meet their end. Also alleged that, the act of the MLA is like giving Beeja Bhagya to the poor, wherein by allowing the factories to run by violating the covid norms, attempting to spread the diseases, in the end to make the poor to suffer more. Which is like in the form of Annabhagya scheme given by the opposite political party when it was in power. And, MLA is doing all these and scheme of the plaintiff is Beeja Bhagya and the MLA is doing all these to show his gratitude and help the people who have funded for his election. By doing so, the MLA won't eat rice as meal, eats only cashew nut seeds. The MLA is protecting the interest of the owners of cashew nut factories, where the poors are struggling for their life 15 O.S.No. 3999/2020 and death. If that aspects are examined carefully the defendant No.1 is attacking on the plaintiffs on many fold, firstly he violated the Covid norms, Secondly neglected the life and interest of poor. Thirdly, despite covid- 19 pandamic he with an intention help the factory owners, who have funded him for election, by throwing the covid guidelines allow them to run the factories. Definitely those allegations doesn't falls under praising of MLA, but its an attempt to criticize him. But, critics with some scathing attacks were made. If they are supported with the evidence, then definitely the their critics will not fall in the category of defamation or derogatory, in the democratic set up, its the duty of everyone to bring the wrong or illegal acts of everyone into the public forum to educate the public to know their leader. But, if the allegations are baseless, that would amounts to damaging the character of an individual not necessarily the public figure like MLA. As we all know the good acts 16 O.S.No. 3999/2020 of an individual will not attract the attention of the public, but a small mistakes will ruins the life of an individual. The Mind of people will believe the facts even before verifying its genuineness.
16 In that background the defendants have passed many groundless allegations. Which are derogatory and defamatory in nature. Allegation of violator of law to help the people who funded him for election. And, other messages really would sends wrong message on the character of the plaintiff. Attempted to portray him as he is against the poor and working for rich. Definitely if the above all the messages are read that would a clearly damages the reputation of persons who is in public life. But to prove their allegation the defendants are placed no piece of evidence. Thus this court is of the opinion the allegations made in the Ex.P.1 document are defamatory in the nature.
17. The constitution of India under article 19 (a) 17 O.S.No. 3999/2020 provides the fundamental rights to its citizens that they have right to speech and expression, but there is a reasonable restriction on it. In this case the defendants have exceeded their limits. It is easy to make an allegation, but before making any allegation one must know its repercussions going to cause on the character of an individual, the character is an asset of every individual, if he lost by doing any wrong, that will remain in his life.
18. The defendants have published such defamatory and derogatory messages in the Facebook time line and shared among its group not only the defendants other have accessed it. Thus this court is of the opinion the defendants have published the defamatory and derogatory messages in the Facebook time line they have caused the defamation to the character and reputation of the plaintiff, who is in public life. Thus answer the point No.1 and 2 in affirmative. 18
O.S.No. 3999/2020
19. Point No.3 and 4: While discussing on whether the act of the defendants are defamatory and derogatory to the character and reputation of the plaintiff is concern, this court has already answered in affirmative. Thus such an act is requires to be contained in the nutshell one cannot do whatever not permissible under law and we need to remind the person who is making the statements by sharing the messages in the social media which are causing a damages the one's character and reputation, that he should have the limitation and restriction. He must be reminded himself that, he must make the statement on anybody responsibly and not carelessly. Further he must be reminded himself that every word he uses on some one should have base, used responsibly and not carelessly. There is a duty on the law enforcement agency to regulate the behavior of the public. Otherwise its difficult to a create an healthy and morally based society. 19
O.S.No. 3999/2020 One must not think he is free to do whatever he think and utter the words, even which damages the once character. The character of an individual in the society is very precious, the loss of such character cannot be compensated in any manner. No one has any right to demoralize some one from his false statements. People should have an habit of make the statements with materials. Otherwise developing of an habit of making false allegations on someone with an intent to bring disreputation his character without any base and material, would lead to drop of quality of standard of morality in the society. As a society, should have the self regulation for the purpose of improving the health of society, need to stop making comments on anybody without verifying the facts. Otherwise making baseless allegation would lead to unrest in the society, in that event there will not be control in the behavioral conduct of the public, in that event would lead to chaos in the 20 O.S.No. 3999/2020 society. Thus to regulate such situations, the law enforcement agencies requires to raise for the occasion need to remind the persons who crosses their limits to understand that their irresponsible and unverified allegations/statements on anybody would attracts the penalty and for which he is accountable. In that background, the plaintiff made out the grounds to grant permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through them from making any false and defamatory statements in their social media accounts in any media of communications against the plaintiff and also it is very reasonable to order the defendants to seek the unconditional apology with the plaintiff for making baseless allegation which are in defamatory and dis repute the character in the person in public life. Thus answer the point No.3 and 4 are in affirmative.
20. Point No.5: This court while answering on 21 O.S.No. 3999/2020 point No.1 to 4 has categorically observed that the defendant No.1 had wrote defamatory messages in his Facebook time line, it was shared by the defendant No.2 among his group member. Which are caused defamatory to the reputation of the plaintiff, who is in public life. The plaintiff who being aggrieved from the of the defendants sought the damages of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendants. In fact the plaintiff by issuing the notice to the defendants demanded Rs. 50 Lakh as compensation. But this court is of the opinion that persons in public life some times to bound to receive some criticism. But not the statements which are defamatory to his character. The defendants are alleged the plaintiff that he by violating the covid rules allowed the factory owners of the cashew nuts to open their factories and made the public that too poor to suffer. For any sensitive human being, who is in public life leading having clean image would get hurts from such allegations, if they are really false and 22 O.S.No. 3999/2020 made with an intention to hurt his feelings and to bring dis reputation to his character in the society. In the present era the public by sitting in the four corner of their house, using the social media recklessly, without having control on their words and their consequence. In that event the message shall be given to the society that they are accountable for their words, allegations made without any base and unverification on the subject matter. Otherwise such irresponsible use of social media will continues. And, unless these circumstances are used to send the stern messages to whoever in social media, who are in the habit of making videos or comments on anybody should mind them that the their act will be scrutinized by the law. They must answerable to their words, baseless and defamatory statements would attracts the punishment both under the tortuous and criminal liability. In that back, the defendants liable to make good the plaintiff by paying the damages for their 23 O.S.No. 3999/2020 unverified comments which were brought the dis reputation to the reputation of the plaintiff in his public life. For which the plaintiff is entitled for the damages from the defendants. From the type of attack made on him that too he runned his election on the funding of cashew nuts factory owners, for whom he compromised with the covid guidelines, neglected the poor and other public at large, compromised with their health and life. That too, if the situation of covid period of time is recollected, it was new new disease, scientist were clueless on the behavior of virus, they were under confusion which medicine would rescue the infected, short of medicine, short of medical facility, there was a deaths due short oxygen, society was under full of fear, life was under full of uncertainty, state machineries were facing unprecedented pressure to balance between the health of Society, Economy, medicine, employment, law and order. In that situation any comments on the people 24 O.S.No. 3999/2020 representative that, he is additionally contributing to spread the disease by compromising with the covid guidelines, which would further creates more fear in the mind of public and they will express their anguish on their leader for betraying them in that manner. As situation wouldn't gives them an opportunity to counter verifying the truth of the facts. Thus, the defendant should have behaved in better manner. Should have verified the facts properly. For which they must compensate the plaintiff for their act. Then what should be the ideal compensation? is that the quantum sought by the plaintiff or more or less? Firstly there is no material whether the posting was politically motivated. Secondly, there is no material what was the intention behind them posting such messages. Thirdly there is no material showing their financial capacity pay the damages sought by them. Some time, the man has better knowledge and exposure should have bigger heart to 25 O.S.No. 3999/2020 forgive such people. In this regard its apt to qoute of our Mahathma Gandhiji " The weak can never forgive, forgiveness is the attribute of the strong" Thus by considering all these this court felt, if this directed both the defendants to pay Rs. 25,000/- each to the plaintiff as damages that would serves the purpose, by considering the same answer the point No.5 in partly affirmative.
21. Point No.6: The plaintiff's suit is deserves for the decree, thus I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. The defendants are restrained permanently from making any false and defamatory statements in their respective social media accounts and also in any media of communications against the plaintiff. Also directed the defendants to send their 26 O.S.No. 3999/2020 unconditional apology letter to the plaintiff by apologizing for publishing the false and defamatory messages against the plaintiff in their Facebook account and also directed the defendants to pay each Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff as damages with interest @ of 6% from the date of suit to till its realization.
Office is to draw the decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 7 th day of January, 2023.) (GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: V.Sunil Kumar
(b) Defendant's side : 27
O.S.No. 3999/2020 NIL II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1: Print outs of Postings made in the facebook of defendants account Ex.P.2: Notice dated 14-07-2020 Ex.P.3 2 postal receipts and 4:
Ex.P.5: Postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.6: Postal track consignment
document to showing the service of
legal notice
Ex.P.7: 65-B certificate
(b) Defendants side :
NIL
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.