Requirement of proof of personal animus.

This is an appeal by the defendants in the Court below who are the editor and the proprietor-printer respectively of a monthly Tamil Journal published at Coonoor. They were sued by the Plaintiff (S. R. Narayana Ayyar) for damages to the tune of Rs. 5,500 in respect of a defamatory statement or libel made against the plaintiff by the first defendant (the editor) in the issue of the periodical, largely devoted to the interests of plantation labour, dated 15th January, 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris tried the action upon the merits, and came to the conclusion that the imputations were per se defamatory, that they were not entitled to protection as within the bounds of fair comment, nor of privilege, and that the plaintiff was hence entitled to damages. Damages to the tune of Rs. 1,000 were awarded against both defendants with costs. The appeal is from these findings.

The Tamil text of the article containing the libel is re-produced in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the lower Court. A true translation thereof (Exhibit A-2) is also to be found at page 63 of the printed papers. Since there is very little doubt or difficulty about the language employed, or its broad interpretation, I do not think that it is necessary for me to proceed into the niceties of expression in Tamil Briefly stated, the article attaks the plaintiff, Sri S. R. Narayana Ayyar, in respect of an alleged statement made by him about Pandit Nehru, to the effect that Pandit Nehru was ‘Jaffar Nehru’ because of his Muslim pre-dispositions. The article then proceeds to arraign the plaintiff as a member of the Godse group or as a Godse-ite. The writer states that there are still several persons of this group, who distributed sweets on hearing the news of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and were happy. Persons should be very vigilant, because there may be still many Godses and Narayana Ayyars amongst the public. A careful watch might have to be kept on persons of this description, as there is every likelihood of danger or menace from them. Further, according to the writer, it would be in the public interests, if the Officers of the Criminal Investigation Department watched the movements of such persons with vigilance and sincerity.

There is no dispute, as I have earlier remarked, about the purport and tenor of the passage in question. Since Nathuram Godse was practically unknown as a politician or a public figure, except perhaps within the confines of Maharashtra, till he sprang into prominence upon the occasion of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and acquired immediately a country-wide notoriety, I do not think that it can be seriously challenged either that the name of Godse is inevitably linked in the minds of the public with that tragic crime. In other words, to brand any person as a Godse-ite, or a member of that group from whom danger may be apprehended by the public, is to impute, with very little innuendo about it, that that person was likely to adopt the methods of political assassination for enforcing his opinions. The little vagueness that might remain about this interpretation is dispelled by the further statement of the writer that Godses and Narayana Ayyars were still amongst us and that, in the public interests, the movements of such persons should be carefully watched by the Officers of the Criminal Investigation Department.

There can be no doubt, in consequence, that the expressions complained of were highly defamatory per se and further that the effect of the entire passage, upon the mind of any unprejudiced writer, would be to lead him into the belief that the plaintiff (Sri Narayana Ayyar) was a person from whom violence against esteemed public leaders might be feared. This is not a mere fragmentary interpretation, founded upon one or two isolated sentences torn from the context. It is the general effect of this article headed: "We feel ashamed and vexed. There is still a crowd of Godses". Not merely this, but it is