The responsibility of the editor in selecting and publishing news items, and the need to establish the truth of defamatory materials to avoid liability.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the concurrent finding of fact returned by the judgment dated 30.08.2013 delivered in Money Appeal No.18 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. At the time of admitting the appeal, by the order dated 28.01.2014, the following substantial question of law was framed for hearing :

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the inferior Courts suffer from perversity?”

3. At the beginning, this court was persuaded to ask the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to locate the perversity inasmuch as this court is not an appellate court for making fresh enquiry into the fact, rather the jurisdiction of the court is limited to appreciation of the substantial question of law involved in the appeal having filed under Section 100 of the CPC.

4. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the documentary evidence (Exbt.1 to 13), has not been read properly by the first appellate court while passing the judgment, affirming the judgment dated 12.07.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Money Suit No. 03 of 2006.

5. Briefly stated the material facts are that the plaintiff-respondent who is a government officer, claimed to have been defamed by three news items published by the appellant’s newspaper, named and styled as “Syandan Patrika” on 01.04.2005, 25.05.2005 and 21.06.2005. For such defamatory news items published without any foundation, the plaintiff’s reputation has been damaged and on that cause the plaintiff filed the suit for realizing the damage caused by those defamatory news as published by the defendant-appellant.

6. As it appears from the written statement, for the public good, the newspaper had published those reports and the publication so made is based on truth. The defendant-appellant has stated further that the Visa Officer, against whom the allegations are mostly targeted, did not file any case neither did he issue any contradiction of those news items and hence it has to be inferred that the publication was based on truth. An individual, as if cannot have the cause to realize the damage he suffered for defamatory act which had brought a collective of individuals in the ring of defamation. Even though five issues were framed by the trial court, the issue which is reproduced hereunder, was the foundation of adjudication :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation by way of damage if so what should be the amount.”

7. After recording the evidence, the trial court has returned the finding as under :

“In the case in hand, the news items published on 01.04.2005, 25.05.2005, 21.06.2005 are definitely defamatory if the news items are published without any basis. The Madras High Court after referring to the English authorities and also defamation act 1952 came to the conclusion that equity and good conscience are not applicable in India moreover, in the opinion of the court, English Law had been altered by Section 4 of the defamation Act, by which the publishers of an innocent but defamatory statement can avoid his liability. It was therefore, held that, in India there was no liability for the statements published innocently. But the liability of the person who repeats a defamatory matter arises in the same way as that of the originator, because every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Not only the author of the defamatory matter is liable but its editor, printer, or publisher would also be liable in the same way. There is another class of persons who might disseminate the matter without knowing its contents i.e. book sellers, newspaper sellers and librarians. The law adopts a lenient attitude towards them. They are not liable if

I. They did not know or

II. Inspite of reasonable diligence could not have known that what they were circulating was defamatory.

In the case inhand aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document