The court ruled that the names of individuals whose comments were cited in a defamatory article are discoverable as they are relevant to the plaintiff's case, rejecting claims of journalistic privilege.

1. The plaintiff is a well known film script writer. In the issue of a magazine called "Star Dust" for the month April 1987 an article has been published by defendants 1 to 4 on the plaintiff and his wife who is a well-known film star. The article makes comments on the plaintiff and his wife which, according to the plaintiff, are highly defamatory. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 25 lakhs for defamation.

2. A substantial part of the article consists of "reporting" of comments made by various parties on the life style of the plaintiff and his wife. The persons who are alleged to have made these comments are variously referred to in the article as "Star wife", "industrywalla", "Industrywallis", and "Unitwall" of film Unit of Mr. India". One of the persons who is supposed to have made these comments is referred to by name in the article. He is joined in the suit as defendant 5. In the present Chamber Summons the plaintiff wants defendant 3, Nishi Prem, who is the author of this article to disclose on affidavit the names of these persons referred to as "Starwife", 'Industrywalla,' 'Industrywallis' and 'Unitwall' of the film unit of Mr. India." Whose comments are said to have been reproduced in the article.

3. Order XI Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. deals with discovery by interrogatories. Every party is entitled to administer interrogatories to know the facts which constitute the opponent's case. But he cannot obtain disclosure of evidence by which the opponent hopes to prove his case. He cannot ask for the names of the opponent's witnesses. A party is also not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary's case. Interrogatories are permissible in connection with one's own case, for example, for obtaining admissions or they may be aimed at impeaching or destroying the adversary's case.

4. A party also cannot ask for any confidential communications between the opponent and his legal adviser. And lastly the court may not permit disclosures injurious to public interest. (Vide Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, 14th Edition, Vol. II page 1151).

5. The plaintiff is seeking the names of persons referred to in the article who are supposed to have made comments which are reproduced in the article. The names of these persons who feature in the article itself cannot be considered merely as names of witnesses of the defendants. Their comments are the subject matter of the article itself and they have been used by the author for the purpose of lending an air of authenticity to the statements which are made in that article. Hence the names of these persons form a material part of the subject matter which is said to be defamatory.

6. The suit is for libel where the defence is a rolled up plea of justification cum fair comment. The question whether in fact such comments were made or not and if made by whom, is directly relevant. Disclosure of these names is also relevant for establishing malice. In fact, it is the contention of the plaintiff that such comments were never made by anybody. In support he points out that the comments attributed in the article to defendant 5 are denied by defendant 5 in an affidavit which he has made for the Motion No. 835 of 1987 in the present suit. The disclosure of these names is therefore directly relevant for the establishment of the plaintiffs case.

7. In his affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons the plaintiff has given the following grounds for obtaining this discovery.