Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Dr. C. V. Ananda Bose - Plaintiff
Versus
Sushri Mamta Banerjee & Ors. - Defendants
G.A. No. 1 of 2024 With GA No. 2 of 2024 In C.S. No. 168 of 2024
Decided On : 15-07-2024
Defamation - Interim Order - Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, Article 361 - The court discussed the balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation, emphasizing that defamatory statements, even if made in public interest, can warrant an injunction if they cause irreparable harm.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a constitutional authority, sought an interim order against defendants for defamatory statements made in various publications and a video, alleging harm to his reputation and public image.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of defamation, and the balance of convenience favored granting an interim injunction to prevent further defamatory statements until the matter could be fully adjudicated.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the defendants were defamatory and if the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction against their publication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while freedom of speech is protected, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to reputation, especially for public figures facing unsubstantiated allegations.
Result: The defendants are restrained from making any defamatory statements against the plaintiff until 14th August, 2024.
ORDER :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. Plaintiff has filed the present application for grant of interim order against the defendants. The plaintiff is the Governor of the State of West Bengal and is Constitutional Authority. The defendant no. 1 is the Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal and Chairperson of the All India Trinamool Congress. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the newly elected members of West Bengal State Legislative Assembly. The defendant no. 4 is the member of the All India Trinamool Congress.
2. Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1 made a defamatory statement in “Indian Express” at pages 1 & 2 and the “Times of India” at page 6 and “The Hindu” at page 1 on 28th June, 2024 against the plaintiff.
3. Mr. Trivedi submits that the similar defamatory statement made by the defendant no. 2 in the “Indian Express” at page nos. 1 and 2 on 28th June, 2024 against the plaintiff.
4. He submits that defendant no. 4 has made defamatory statement in Bengali newspaper, namely, “Khabar 365 Din” at page 3 dated 29th June, 2024 against the plaintiff. He submits that apart from the defamatory statement made by the defendant no. 4 in the newspaper in “Khabar 365 Din”, on or about 19:04 hours on 28th June, 2024, the Asian News Agency (ANI @ ANI) released a video of the defendant no. 4 in X (twiter.inc) (https://x.com/ANI) making vague threatening remarks against the plaintiff in order to pressurize the plaintiff to accept the request made by the defendant nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff says that the video is widely circulated in public.
5. The plaintiff says that by the newspaper articles and the video release by the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 and each of them meant and/or were understood by the defendants to mean that :
(b) The Petitioner is intentionally procrastinating for administering oath to the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein due to alleged political rivalry.
(c) The Petitioner has been embroiled in a criminal case after a complaint has been lodged by a female staff of the Governor's House and thus, the Petitioner's character is questionable.
(d) The Petitioner has been obstructing the course of administration of public duties by not allowing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take oath as Members of Legislative Assembly.
(e) The Petitioner has done some mischievous act at Taj Palace, Delhi, questioning the moral turpitude of the Petitioner, as alleged by the Respondent no.4 herein.
(f) The Respondents have made several allegations in the newspaper articles and the video published in twitter which the Respondents did not believe it to be true. The slanderous and libelous allegations have been made by the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 only to malign the reputation and goodwill of the Petitioner and/or his Officers in Governor House and to cause severe loss and injury to the Petitioner's name and to tarnish the public image of the Petitioner.
6. The plaintiff says that such false, frivolous, libelous allegation made by the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 in collusion and connivance with the defendant no. 2 against the plaintiff has injured the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff as well as his office being the Governor of the State of West Bengal and has exposed him to hatred, contempt, ridicule amongst others.
7. The plaintiff says that the allegations made by the defendants nos. 1, 3 and 4 in the newspaper articles as well as in the video published in twitter are wholly untrue and without any basis. He submits that the insinuation or the innuendoes have caused tremendous mental and emotional agony to the plaintiff and have brought him to public ridicule and contempt.
8. Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff relied upon the judgment in the case of Isha Distribution House Private Limited vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited & Anr. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 205 and submitted that te
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 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 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 established the need to protect reputation from unsubstantiated allegations and highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and the right to safeguard reputation.
The right to privacy in matrimonial matters is protected under Article 21, and courts must carefully balance this right against freedom of expression when considering interim injunctions in defamatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to grant injunction in defamation suits, and the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute but is circ....
The balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression must be upheld, emphasizing that claims of defamation require full trial for verification.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, but it does not entitle anyone to resort to speech that is defamatory. In a defamation suit, the Defendant has the burden of proving the tr....
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
