Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
M/S TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. (TCIL) – Appellant
Versus
MS. AYUSHI MISHRA – Respondent
CS(OS) 499/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Shashank Shekhar
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Chandar
Complaints made to authorities cannot be considered defamatory without substantiation of falsehood; expressing grievances is a fundamental right.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Legal principles regarding cause of action in defamation suits - Complaints made to authorities do not amount to defamatory statements in absence of inquiry or determination of falsehood - Relevant case law discussed. (Paras 8, 9, 12, 14, 15)
(B) Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) - Increase of SLAPP suits noted as tactics by powerful entities to silence critics, establishing importance of free speech principles in public interest. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
A civil suit filed by a telecommunications firm alleging defamation against the defendant who accused it of anti-competitive practices without evidence. The plaintiff claims reputational damage and seeks injunctive and monetary reliefs due to unfounded allegations. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
Allegations made in complaints to authorities do not constitute defamation and require investigation before establishing a cause of action. (Paras 8, 14)
Issues: Whether the defendant's complaints constituted defamatory statements without the verification of their truthfulness by appropriate authorities. (Paras 8-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations to government bodies regarding malpractices do not establish defamation absent concrete proof of their falsehood, emphasizing the right of individuals to express grievances. (Paras 12-14)
Result: Suit dismissed due to lack of valid cause of action.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff alleges defamatory statements affecting reputation. (Para 1 , 3) |
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant civil suit has been filed for the following relief:-
“(a) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and/or her associates, agents, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified representatives, correspondents, heirs, relatives etc. or otherwise permanently restraining the Defendant, her associates, or any third party associated with the or in conjunction with the Defendant from publishing, republishing, writing, speaking, directly or indirectly, any defamatory or otherwise permanently restraining, through print or electronic media or via the internet, or otherwise through any means whatsoever, from circulating, forwarding, re—forwarding, publishing, publicizing in any manner, any matter or any form of communications or publications whatsoever against the Plaintiff herein or any matter similar or incidental thereto or any other matter related to the above mentioned communications or any other matter which tends to lower the reputation of the Plaintiff in the estimation of the employees, dealers or the public at large;
(b) Pass a decree of damages in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1 for an amount or Rs. 2,25,00,000/- or any such sum as may be determined by this hon’ble Court;
(c) Pass an order awarding exemplary costs and cost of the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”
2 . The facts of the case reveal that the defendant dispatched notices dated 05.03.2025 and 20.03.2025 to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the Department of Telecommunications, and the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation (BSEDC), alleging that Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL), the plaintiff herein, had manipulated bandwidth pricing, particularly from BSNL, to unfairly secure tenders. According to the defendant, such conduct resulted in the loss of public funds and constituted anti-competitive practices.
3. The allegations specifically referred to the BSEDC tender dated 31.12.2024 for the Bihar State-wide Area Network, wherein TCIL was declared the L-1 bidder. It is contended in the plaint that the defendant's assertions are wholly baseless, as they are unsupported by any documentary evidence, and the information alluded to in the notices derives from confidential bid/tender-related documents that are not in the public domain, thereby implying unlawful procurement thereof by the defendant. It is Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified further averred that non-participants in the tender/bid process lack locus standi to advance such claims as those contained in the notices.
4. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action accrued on 05.03.2025, concomitant with the initial circulation of the alleged defamatory notice, which is stated to continue to inflict reputational harm upon TCIL. The plaintiff further avers that such allegations have caused tangible prejudice, including delays in the tender award process and inquiries from BSEDC vide letters dated 20.03.2025 and 02.04.2025, to which TCIL responded on
28.03.2025 and 07.04.2025, respectively.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.
6. Upon a careful examination of the letter dated 05.03.2025, addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of BSNL, with copies thereof dispatched to the Chairman of the Department of Telecommunications and the Managing Director of the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation, it is seen that in the said letter, concerns have been articulated regarding differential bandwidth pricing practices involving BSNL and TCIL (the plaintiff herein). These practices are alleged to confer undue advantages upon the plaintiff, thereby undermining a level playing field for other bidders in the tender process.
7. The letter further posits a recurrent pattern whereby TCIL procures unprec
