SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 17

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
RAM JETHMALANI – Appellant
Versus
SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The defendant's statements before a Commission of Inquiry and their publication in open proceedings potentially defeat absolute privilege, leading to defamation liability and damages. (!) (!) - Whether absolute privilege applies to statements made in writing before the Jain Commission and subsequently read out, and if not, whether there was malice or excess of privilege sufficient to deny protection. (!) (!) - The judgment discusses the elements of defamation, defenses of absolute privilege, qualified privilege, and fair comment, including the burden of proving malice and whether publication occurred, resulting in damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) NEEDLESS to state, to appreciate an action for libel or slander, knowledge of the facts constituting the backdrop against which the battle of words was fought is essential. Briefly stated, origin of the present suit are the proceedings which commenced pursuant to a notification dated 23. 8. 1991 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry act, 1952.

( 2 ) JUSTICE M. C. Jain Commission of Inquiry was constituted under the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the mandate to make an inquiry with respect to the following matters :-" (a) The consequences of events leading, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur (other than the matters covered by the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry headed by Shri Justice J. S. Verma); (b) Whether any person or persons or agencies were responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning the association and whether there was any conspiracy in this behalf and, if so all its ramifications. "

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the nature of inquiry, notification directed that all provisions of Sub-Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Secti










































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top