Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32224
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
ONEXTEL MEDIA PVT LTD AND ANR & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
ANIL KUMAR EDITOR IN CHIEF TELECOM LIVE MAGAZINE & – Respondent
CS(OS) 876/2024
FOX MANDAL & CO.
Defendants may publish factual content from verified sources while refraining from unsupported inferences, adhering to Press Council guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Defendants sought modification of an ex-parte ad-interim order prohibiting publication of a potentially defamatory article - Court allowed limited publication of facts from specified documents, barring unsupported inferences. (Paras 1.4, 5, 8)
(B) Defamation - The court emphasized the need for verified sources before publishing allegations, ensuring compliance with Press Council guidelines. (Paras 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
The defendants received legal notices but chose not to respond. They sought to publish an article based on documents annexed to their reply, which the plaintiffs disputed as irrelevant.
Findings of Court:
The defendants may report only on facts supported by the specified documents and must avoid unsubstantiated claims.
Issues: The primary issues included the defendants' intentions regarding publication and the relevance of the documents they relied upon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that defendants are permitted to publish only verified facts and must adhere to established guidelines, preserving the integrity of the plaintiffs' rights.
Result: The order dated 05.11.2024 was modified accordingly.
O R D E R
I.A. 44045/2024( Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff)
1. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 2.
1.1. He states that he has filed his reply to the said application.
1.2. He states that the defendants have been served on 26.11.2024 and they shall file their written statement within the stipulated period in accordance with law.
1.3. He fairly states that though the legal notices issued by the plaintiffs were duly received by the defendants, the defendants elected not to respond to the said legal notices.
1.4. He states that however pending the final disposal of this application and pending the completion of the pleadings in the suit, the defendants seek modification of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 05.11.2024 to the extent that the defendant be permitted to report facts on the basis of the contents of the documents enlisted at Annexure ‘A-1’ to ‘A-8’ filed along with the reply to the captioned application.
1.5. He states that the defendants undertake that the report will only be pertaining to the facts which are discernible from Annexures ‘A-1’ to ‘A-8’ and there will be no ‘inferences’ or ‘innuendos’ drawn which are unsupported by these documents, unless a known and a verified source is willing to come on record with his name and identity duly disclosed.
1.6. He admits that though the first communication to the plaintiffs proposing to publish the article was issued by defendants on 06.08.2024, no article has in fact being published till 06.11.2024 i.e. when the ad-interim order was issued.
2. In reply, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that Annexure ‘A-4’ to ‘A-7’ annexed along with the reply to captioned application does not pertain to the plaintiffs.
2.1
She states that for instance Annexure ‘A-3’ are stated to be copies of ‘12’ complaints which do not make any reference to the plaintiffs herein.
2.2
She states that as far as documents Annexure ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’ are concerned they are a matter of record.
2.3
She states that at this stage she is unable to respond to Annexure ‘A-
8’.
2.4
She states that however the plaintiffs specifically dispute the inferences and the innuendos drawn on the basis of these documents in the reply filed by the defendants to the captioned applications.
2.5
She states that the defendants have no real intention to publish the article and had merely issued communications to coerce the plaintiffs. She states that the defamatory allegations made in the communications circulated by defendants to the clients of the plaintiffs are not borne out from Annexure ‘A-1’ to ‘A-8’.
2.6
In addition, she states that the plaintiff seeks two (2) weeks’ time to file rejoinder to the said application.
3. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties.
4. Upon an enquiry to the counsel for the defendant with respect to the basis of assertions/allegations made in the communication dated 06.08.2024 qua Mohd. Rashid Anwar, the counsel fairly stated that for present no documents in support of the said allegations have been filed on record.
5. Pending the completion of the pleadings, the order dated 05.11.2024 is modified to the extent that the defendants are at liberty to publish article limited to reporting facts which are accurate and duly borne out from the documents annexed at Annexure ‘A-1’ to ‘A-8’ of reply to the captioned application and/or from a source which is duly verified and is willing for his/her/its name to be disclosed on record. It is clarified that the defendants shall not be entitled to publish ‘inferences’ and ‘innuendos’ which are unsubstantiated by these documents.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that defendants should circulate the draft of the article intended to be published by them in conformity with the guidelines published applicable to the press to seek the comments of the plaintiffs.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant objects to the said submission. He states that there is no require
