Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Madhav J.Jamdar, J.
Dhyandev Kachruji Wankhede - Appellant
Versus
Nawab Malik - Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 25975 of 2021 In Suit (L) No. 25974 of 2021
Decided On : 21-11-2021
Court held that the Defendant should conduct reasonable verification of the facts before publishing, writing, speaking in media including electronic media and the social media or publishing in any manner whatsoever any content/material which amounts to defamatory of Plaintiff or his family members.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a retired government official, and his family members filed a suit against the Defendant, a politician, for defamation. The Defendant had made several tweets, social media posts, and press statements alleging that the Plaintiff's son, a Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), was involved in corruption and extortion. The Plaintiff claimed that these statements were false and defamatory and sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from publishing any further defamatory content.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendant's statements were made in the context of his public duties as a politician and that they related to the official conduct of the Plaintiff's son. The Court also found that the Defendant had not acted with malice or personal animosity and that he had conducted a reasonable verification of the facts before making the statements.
Issues: 1. Whether the Defendant's statements were defamatory. 2. Whether the Defendant had a defense under any of the exceptions to the law of defamation. 3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the Defendant from publishing further defamatory content.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Defendant's statements were not defamatory because they were made in the context of his public duties and related to the official conduct of the Plaintiff's son. The Court also held that the Defendant had a defense under the exception of fair comment and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Arshad Shaikh, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. Atul Damle, learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant.
2. At the outset Mr. Shaikh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff clarified that at this stage the Plaintiff is only pressing for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 5 (c) of the Interim Application. The said prayer clause 5(c) is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
"(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Interim Application, this Hon 'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of injunction preventing and / or restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants, authorized representatives, his party members and all others acting under and on his instructions from publishing, writing, speaking in any media, including electronic media and the social media handles, or publishing in any manner whatsoever any content / material which is defamatory about the Plaintiff and / or his family members. "
3. Before considering the rival submissions it will be necessary to set out the pleadings of the parties. The Plaintiff 's case as set out in the plaint is as follows:-
"(a) The Plaintiff is retired Government official and was working as Senior Police Inspector of State Excise Department at the time of his retirement in 2007.
(b) The Plaintiff 's family comprises of (i) daughter - Mrs. Yasmeen Aziz Khan nee Miss Yasmeen Dhyandev Wankhede, who is an Advocate by profession practising at various courts in Mumbai; (ii) son - Mr.Sameer Wankhede, who is presently posted as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Government of India and (iii) his daughter-in-law - Mrs. Kranti Sameer Wankhede nee Miss Kranti Redkar is a film actress.
(c) Defendant is an Indian politician affiliated to Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and who is the current Cabinet Minister of State of Maharashtra, Minority Development, Aukaf, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship. The Defendant is the National Spokesperson and Mumbai President of NCP. The Defendant is active in news and media on and through his twitter account, viz. "Nawab Malik @nawabmalikncp ".
(d) It is the case of the Plaintiff that the interviews / press conferences given by the Defendant to various news channels and the posts uploaded by him on his social media accounts, including the said Twitter Account, are highly defamatory, slanderous as well as libellous, as it contains incorrect facts and conclusions, communicates misinformation and incomplete information, and is a deliberate, calculated move on the Defendant 's part to knowingly and maliciously defame, inter alia, the Plaintiff and / or his family members, causing him and his other family members, as mentioned above, not only an incalculable loss, harm and damage to their reputation at large but ex-facie impairs their right to live with human dignity.
(e) In paragraph 6 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has set out following tweets/ social media contents etc. which according to Plaintiff are defamatory:-
(i) Fletcher Patel seen in this picture, with someone who he calls 'My Lady Don '. Who is this 'Lady Don '?
(ii) Ugahi ka dhandha Maldive me!
(iii) Here are the proofs!
(iv) Sameer Wankhede has accepted the fact that he had visited Maldives but he denies the visit to Dubai. Here is the proof of his visit to Dubai with his sister. Sameer Wankhede was at Grand Hyatt Hotel in Dubai on 10th December 2020. His lie stands exposed.
(v) Pehchan kaon?
(vi) Sameer Dawood Wankhede ka yaha se shuru hua farjiwada.
(vii) Who is this Wankhede Dawood?
(viii) Photo of a Sweet Couple Sameer Dawood Wankhede and Dr. Shabana Qureshi.
(ix) This is the 'Nikah Nama ' of the first marriage of 'Sameer Dawood Wankhede ' with Dr. Shabana Quraishi.
(x) Who is this person? What is his relation with Dawood Wankhede and Sameer Dawood Wankhede ? Please let us know.
(xi) ...He farzi certificate chya aadharavar yanna nokari milali nasati tar hotkaru ek gareeb dalit porga kinva porgi ti ya pad
The judgment established the balance between freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
The judgment established the need to protect reputation from unsubstantiated allegations and highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and the right to safeguard reputation.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused persons were entitled to the benefit of exception 1 to 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as the imputation was made in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
