2002 Supreme(Del) 1675

High Court Of Delhi
AJAY AGGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
VINOD MEHTA - Respondent
Suit 1490 of 1993
Decided On : 11/11/2002

Headnote:tort - Defamation — Suit for damages and mandatory injunction — Plaintiff, an IPS officer (DCP), and defendant their newspaper publishing a news item captioned "DSP accused of preventing dowry victims post mortem" — Despite plaintiffs letter protesting against incorrect, unfair, mala fide and defamatory reporting and to clarify the position so that things were straightened, defendants repeated the defamatory report by printing below plaintiffs letter an Editors note reasserting their report was based on court judgment — Said judgment not saying that post mortem not conducted under instructions of plaintiff — News item not correctly reported, resulting in dafamation of plaintiff and lowering his dignity, prestige and standing in the eyes of public — Report published not in good faith nor for public good in larger interest of society — Suit decreed — Plaintiff entitled to general and special damages together with interest, and also for mandatory injunction to withdraw said news item, as prayed for.

       Held:

       The plaintiff has proved on record as, the off ending news item printed in the defendants newspaper, in which after a question as to whether the formalities of a post mortem could be waived or not in a case where a young woman was electrocuted the answer was provided by saying that this was exactly what had happened in January, 1984 when at the instance of the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (plaintiff) a post mortem was not conducted on the body of the victim. In the next paragraph of the report, it was stated that the plaintiff s role in effectually preventing the post mortem came to light when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate delivered a judgment acquitting the accused of the charge of dowry harassment. It was further added in this report that the said Magistrate had observed in his order that the post mortem examination was not conducted on the dead body because of the instructions of DCP. A certified copy of judgment has been proved on record.

       A perusal of the judgment shows that the Court did not at all give any finding that the post mortem on the body of the deceased was not conducted under the instructions of or at the instance of the plaintiff.

       A bare reading of the news item shows that it had put the plaintiff in a poor light and had projected him as a Police Office who was capable of interfering with the investigations of criminal cases with a view to screen and save the offenders from punishment. The plaintiff being a senior Officer of Indian Police Service (belonging to AGMU cadre) was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police and as such any aspersion on his character was bound to lower his dignity, prestige and image in the eyes of public as well as his superiors and colleagues in the police force.

       The news item had lowered the dignity and prestige of the plaintiff in the eyes of general public as well as his superiors and colleagues and had resulted in his defamation.

       While making a report about the court proceedings or judicial orders, the press like any other person is under an obligation to ensure that the publication is a substantially true report and is being made in good faith and for public good. Mere belief of the printer publisher that the report is correct would not be a defense unless it is shown that they had acted with due care and caution. A coloured account of judicial proceedings mixed with reporters own observations so as to create an impression as if those observations were also the observations of the Court cannot be protected by the plea of good faith as in the absence of any motive even it falls short of duly of due care and caution. In the present case, the news item was carrying certain remarks directly attributed to the Magistrate whereas in fact the Magistrate had said nothing in respect thereof. The word intervention used in the judgment by the Court while stating the prosecution case was converted into instruction so as to fully nail the plaintiff as a black sheep in the police force who had helped a criminal escape in a dowry death case. This reporting, thereforee, was neither true nor in good faith nor in public interest. It was a totally untrue and irresponsible reporting aimed at sensationalising the issue.

       In his affidavit the plaintiff has given details of his academic excellence and career achievements to show that he is one of the most meritorious officers of the service. The averments made in the plaint and the affidavits of the plaintiff and another IPS Officer which have gone unrebutted satisfactorily prove on record that the plaintiff had suffered in his reputation and had fallen in public esteem on account of publication of the news item and as such the plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed.

       The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18 per cent per annum on the decretal amount. However, Interest @ 12 per cent annum is awarded in favor of the plaintiff from the date of this judgment till realisation.

       An ex parts mandatory injunction is also issued in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants to withdraw the news item and Editors note clarifying that there was no observation from the Court in regard to the conduct of the plaintiff.