IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Roopa Mitra – Plaintiff
Versus
Pratidin Prakashani Ltd. and Others – Respondents
CS No. 236 of 2007
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Defamation - Advocate - Rubber Improvement Ltd. and Another vs. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) A.C. 234, Charleston and Another vs. News Group Newspapers Ltd. and Another, (1995) 2 AC 65 (HL)
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, an advocate, filed a defamation suit against a Bengali Daily and its editor for publishing defamatory news items implicating her and her husband. The Defendants did not file a written statement, and the suit was heard as undefended. The Plaintiff presented evidence to prove the news items were false and defamatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the news items were published in a manner that created a negative impression of the Plaintiff, lowering her esteem in society. The court held that the news items were libelous and defamatory, and awarded the Plaintiff Rs. 1,00,000/- as general damages. A permanent injunction was also issued against the Defendants from publishing similar defamatory news items about the Plaintiff.
Issues: The issues involved the publication of defamatory news items, the impact on the Plaintiff's reputation, and the entitlement to general damages and injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in the cases of Rubber Improvement Ltd. and Another vs. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) A.C. 234 and Charleston and Another vs. News Group Newspapers Ltd. and Another, (1995) 2 AC 65 (HL) to determine the defamatory nature of the news items and the entitlement to general damages. The court emphasized the manner of publication and its impact on the Plaintiff's reputation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the suit, awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as general damages, and issued a permanent injunction against the Defendants from publishing similar defamatory news items about the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
1. This is a suit for defamation.
2. The plaint case in nutshell is that the Plaintiff is an advocate practicing in Calcutta High Court since 1983. She has obtained her honours degree in law from University of Calcutta and was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1983. The Plaintiff is associated with M/s Khaitan and Co. a firm of solicitors and Advocates for long. She has been practicing in the Calcutta High Court for three decades and more. The Plaintiff is also a member of Rotary Club of Calcutta - Victoria and INTACH and is associated with their activities. The Plaintiff hailed from a Gujrati family of high reputation.
3. Defendant No. 1 is a Bengali Daily. Defendant No. 2 is the editor, printer and publisher of the Defendant No. 1. It is averred in the plaint that the Defendant No. 1 published a news item on 1st September, 2007 bearing a heading that one old father was tortured by his son who is a Barrister. This article is defamatory implicating the Plaintiff and her husband. The Plaintiff caused a letter dated 5th September, 2007 to be issued by her advocate to the Defendant No. 1 and 2 setting out the true and correct facts. In spite of issuance of said letter the Defendant caused another news item to be published in the Bengali Daily “Sangbad Pratidin” on 5th September, 2007 bearing and heading purporting to say that the old father was tortured which was being investigated by the police. According to Plaintiff the news items were caused to be published in the “Sangbad Pratidin” on 1st September, 2007 and 5th September, 2007 by those persons having some vested interests. The news items contain malicious falsehood, were published recklessly without verifying the truth of the same. But for such publication, the Plaintiff has suffered considerable distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation as well as serious injury to her character, credit and reputation; the Plaintiff is exposed to public scandal and contempt. The Plaintiff’s letter to the Defendant No. 1 was replied by the Defendant without ameliorating the predicament. Therefore, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the instant suit praying for decree of Rs. 10 Crores as damages; alternatively, enquiry to ascertain the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and decree for such damages; injunction restraining the Defendants and their agents from publishing, printing or circulating any words defamatory to the Plaintiff along with other prayers.
4. Summons were served upon the Defendants who appeared in the suit on 22.02.2008 but did not file any written statement till 2nd March, 2023, that is to say for 15 years. Accordingly, the suit was heard as undefended.
5. The Plaintiff adduced oral as well as documentary evidences.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the news items are defamatory and published with ill-motive to vilify the Plaintiff and her husband and lower the estimation of the Plaintiff in his society. The news items are false which is evidenced by the letters written by the brother and sister of his father as well as by other persons. The Plaintiff is a reputed and highly educated lawyer with long standing practicing history in the Calcutta High Court. Such reckless statements would in all possibilities, injured the reputation of the Plaintiff. Although special damages is not prayed for, the Plaintiff is definitely entitled to general damages and injunctive relief, as prayed for.
7. Ext.A is the news item published in Bengali Daily “Sangbad Pratidin” on 01.09.2007. There is a bold headline “Father of Barrister son tormented”. The content of the news item is that a septuagenarian father is being tortured daily both physically and mentally by his only son and the son’s wife. The husband of the Plaintiff and she herself are named by the father. It is in the news item that in spite of approach to different authorities and police there was no redressal of grievance of the father and the seventy nine years old father is
A plaintiff must substantiate claims of defamation with specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm, which cannot be based merely on general assertions or unverified statements.
In defamation cases, the plaintiff must prove the statements are defamatory, refer to them, and were published; context is crucial in determining defamation.
The right to free expression by the press is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual's right to privacy and reputation; defamatory statements must be substantiated.
The failure to provide certified translations of defamatory articles into the national language is fatal to a defamation claim, regardless of the merits of the case.
The publication of defamatory statements without substantiation violates the rights of the affected person, and intention or knowledge regarding reputational harm suffices for establishing defamation....
Defamatory publications must be verified for truth; failure to do so can result in liability for damages.
The court ruled that a plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the statements were defamatory, but the defendant's failure to present evidence can shift the burden back to the plaintiff to establis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.