Defamatory media broadcasts intended to ridicule professional entities are actionable. Where defendants tender an unconditional apology after prolonged litigation, the court may dispose of the suit by awarding token damages and costs, recognizing both the harm established and the voluntary cessation of the offending conduct.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity within the city of Kolkata and its adjoining districts in West Bengal, by virtue of an agreement between the State of West Bengal and the plaintiff.

2. The defendant no.1 is a Company, namely, 3 Cheers Entertainments Private Limited, engaged in telecasting a daily programme “Khoj Khabar” on Akash Bangla Channel, wherein the defendant no.2 is the Director of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.3 is the anchor person/presenter of the said “Khoj Khabar” programme.

3. The daily programme used to telecast between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. in the evening and with a repeat telecast in the following day morning between 8.55 a.m. and 9.25 a.m.

4. On or about 12th March, 2004 at 10 p.m., the defendants started its programme “Khoj Khabar” published and telecast by stating that the defendants had launched a campaign to stop the “Mafia – giri” of CESC Ltd., and accused the State Government and the administration to having handed over the bare minimum right of enjoying electricity of the public at large to a “Tughlaqui” company which indulges in “goondami”.

5. The defendants tried to portray that CESC was engaged in rampant illegal activities and were extorting monies from their consumers on false pretext. The programme started by a declaration that the defendants intended to expose the ‘Mafiagiri’ of CESC and went on to label CESC as ‘Tughlaqui’ company. Thereafter the programme then began giving alleged examples of the ‘Goondami’ of CESC and referred to its activities as ‘Zoolumbazi’ and openly alleged that CESC had become a ‘Big thief’.

6. The language used throughout the programme was defamatory and abusive, but there was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and the programme even started ridiculing the employees of CESC portraying them as devils and associating them with backdrops of Osama Bin Laden and some other terrorists.

7. An employee of the plaintiff, namely, Mr. Anirban Raha, employed as an Assistant Manager, Loss Control Cell, was shown as a bald headed person with a French-cut beard, having the effect of a devilish personality in a cartoon film through caricature.

8. After first telecast of the programme on 12th March, 2004, Sri Dilip Sen, the Executive Director of the plaintiff Company, on 15th March, 2004, gave an interview to the representatives of the defendant no.1 and explained that the portrayal of CESC in various aspects of the programme was untrue. However, despite collecting information and recording of statements from CESC, instead of telecasting true and actual facts, the defendant in its subsequent telecast again indulged into making derogatory imputations against the plaintiff by misrepresenting the explanations given by CESC.

9. On 29th March, 2004, between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m., there was a further telecast where the defendants were suppose to telecast the interview and the truthful narration of the events about CESC but in fact they simply repeated the excerpts of the programme telecasted on 12th March, 2004.

10. On 30th April, 2004, between 10.00 PM to 10.30 PM and on 1st May, 2004, between 8.55 AM to 9.25 AM, the defendants published by telecast in “Khoj Khabar” once again excerpts from the publications made on 12th March, 2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that the telecast made by the defendants is defamatory and intending to bring the