Law Web: Under which circumstances the court must give interim injunction against defamation publication?

Under the Law of Defamation, the test of defamatory nature

of a statement is its tendency to insight an adverse opinion on

feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. The words must

result in the Plaintiff to be looked upon with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, dislike or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or

business. {Para 19}

In India, like most other common law countries the burden

is proof is on the Defendant to show that the statement is true or

the publication was not intentional.

In S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, a 9 Judge Bench of the Highest Court has authoritatively held that right of privacy is a fundamental right and the only permitted exception is where, there is counter veiling public interest, which in particular

circumstances is strong enough to outweigh it.

20] What the Defendant No.1 is attempting, is investigative

journalism, which is definitely not in the interest of general public

at large, as a Journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise

the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it

definitely cannot be attempted at the cost of defaming the

Plaintiff. The freedom of press, which is being evolved as a species of speech, definitely will have to be balanced against a right, which an individual has to his reputation. Justification by truth is a well accepted defence, which is available to answer the action, as truth of defamatory words, is accepted as defence to an action of libel or slander, though not in a criminal trial. However, what is important is, that the Defendant must make clear, the particulars of justification and the the case which he is seeking to set up and justify.

21] In the present case, Mr. Waahiid Khan has not offered a

single justification of truth, but what is asserted by him, is the

right to give his audience an objective and fair view.

A reference is made to an interview with accused No.13

Amit Majethia, but in any case, such disclosure is merely hearsay.

In fact, in the reply filed,what is disclosed is the FIR

registered with Matunga Police Station, where the Plaintiff is one

of the accused and reference is also made to revelations by Mr.

Amit Majethia to him, where he exposed the Plaintiff as gambling

tycoon of India and disclosed that the Plaintiff was in charge of the

alleged criminal activities in Dubai and his uncle was in charge of

the same in Mumbai.

22] It is highly surprising, that a responsible Journalist,

without asserting the truthfulness of the statement, from Amit

Majethia who was interviewed by him, has thought it fit to put

the revealation on public platform and in public domain

including Shawn TV, instagram account. Though a feeble attempt

is made by Defendant No.1 to assert that he had no intention to

defame or harm the reputation of the Plaintiff, but he has

accepted to bring some important facts to light, burden is upon

him to establish that the Plaintiff is associated with criminal

activities or that he is involved in any sort of hooking. Obviously,

the Defendant has not taken a reasonable precaution of

ascertaining the truth before publication of the interview, by

casting imputations which prima facie amount to defamatory

statement.

23] The question as regards grant of interim relief in form of an

injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing the

defamatory Article on the public platform, it is a trite position of

law in India, that a mere plea of justification would not be

sufficient for denial of interim relief and the Defendant No.1 apart

from it will have to show that the statements were made bonafide

and were in public interest and reasonable precaution was taken

to ascertain the truth and the statements were based on sufficient

material which could be tested for its veracity.

24] The above position of law is well settled in India and is at

variance with the principles of law in England, where in an action for defamation once a Defendant raise a plea of justification, at interim stage, the Plaintiff is not entitled for an interlocutory injunction, but the same not being the position in India, where the Court is entitled to scrutinize the material tendered by the Defendant, so as to test its veracity and to ascertain, whether the statements are made bonafide and whether they are in public interest.

Thus, in India, even at the interlocutory stage, the Court is

very much entitled to look at the material which is alleged to be

defamatory in nature.

25] As a result of position of Law which has evolved in India,

the truth of defamatory words is a complete defence to an action

of libel and slander, but a Journalist or Reporter is not expected to transgress the limits of his right of speech and expression and

cannot claim protection by simply stating that the information,

was provided to him by someone and it is in public interest to

divulge the same, on the pretext that duty lies in giving out that

information to the public.

Investigative Journalism definitely does not enjoy any

special protection and the umbrage of public interest definitely do not permit a publication, which would amount to lowering down the reputation of any person , in any manner particularly without justifying the publication on the basis of its truthfulness. Just because, the Defendant No.1 is interested in ascertaining the

truth or is interested in going to roots of the complaint that is

filed, resulting into an FIR, do not necessarily mean that the

publication is in public interest and particularly when the

complaint is under investigation.

26] A write up which contain imputations and insinuations

against the character of the Plaintiff, particularly when they are

baseless and reckless, as in response to the Interim Application,

except stating that it is based on the First Information Report

and an interview of some third person, no justification is offered,

by the First Defendant.

A publication by a Journalist who claim to have exposed

many scams definitely do not authorize him to publish a column/

article, which may result into hatred, ridicule or contempt of the

Plaintiff and he may not escape the consequences, merely on the

pretext that it is in public interest.

If a CR is registered on a complaint and it is under

investigation, the Defendant No.1 has offered no justification for

running a story, which according to the Plaintiff tends to lower

his image in the public.

29] The position in India, being evolved to the effect that it is

open for the Court to pass a restraint order, but it shall be passed

with great caution and the Plaintiff must prove that the words

complained of, are untrue and any subsequent publication would

be malafide. The case of the Plaintiff falls within these four corners, as the defence of truth if permitted to be availed at the stage of trial, which in this country will be long wait, would have the desired effect of maligning the image of the Plaintiff and without any sufficient cause/justification being offered by any supporting material.

30] For the above reasons, I am convinced to grant the reliefs

in the Interim Application

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.399 OF 2024

IN SUIT (L) NO.398 OF 2024

Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar Vs Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

DATE : 2nd April, 2024.

1] The Suit filed by the Plaintiff, engaged in the business of gold

trading in Dubai and India, with acclaimed turn over of around

Rs.13,50,00,000/-, project a classic case of investigative

journalism, where under the guise of bringing truth before the

public at large, what is attempted is publication of a false,

derogatory and misleading information, and to prevent the

damage, an injunction and other reliefs are prayed for.

The Defendant No.1, a Journalist is alleged to have

circulated/uploaded various posts, his own video interview on

distinct platforms including You Tube, Twitter and on Meta

Platform Inc.

It is this information, in form of videos, post

interviews/comments, which is alleged by the Plaintiff, to be

defamatory in nature and for this cause of action, the Suit is filed

by the Plaintiff against the Defendant no.1 seeking damages and

compensation in the sum of Rs.100 Crores, apart from relief, of an

order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 by

himself and/or through his servants, agents , company,

partnership or any other person, claiming through or under him,

from printing, publishing, selling and/or exhibiting, circulating

the defamatory Articles and streaming and sharing the Videos on

any social media platform, in public domain and from doing any

other acts, deed or thing that may amount to defamation of the

Plaintiff.

The Plaint has impleaded Google LLC, a Company

incorporated in the United States of America as well as X Corp,

San Francisco as well as Meta Platform Inc. as Defendants, as

direction is sought against them, for removing/deleting the

defamatory Articles from their web site/web page.

2] I have heard Advocate Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar for the

Plaintiff, who has also taken out an Interim Application seeking

temporary injunction against Defendant No.1, pending the

hearing and final disposal of the Suit and for issuance of order

and directions against Defendant No.1 to forthwith

remove/delete the defamatory Articles being published via the

links provided, thereunder.

I have also heard Mr. Rizwan Merchant, who represent the

Respondent/Defendant No.1, Mr. Akash Manwani for Defendant

No.2 and Mr. Alankar Kirpekar for Defendant No.3. Defendant

No.4, has not marked its presence.

3] On 07.11.2023, FIR No.0473 is registered with Matunga

Police Station, on the basis of the information received from one

Prakash Bankar, in respect of the occurrence of events from

01.01.2019 to 06.11.2023, which resulted in invocation of

Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act,

1887 and Section 66(d) and 66(f) of the Information Technology

Act, 2000.

The complaint was filed against 31 named persons and

other unknown persons, spread over the globe, including various

places in India, Dubai, UAE, London etc.

The Applicant is also arraigned as an accused No.10 in the

FIR, with his permanent address being cited as Girgaon, Mumbai,

P Road, Greater Mumbai City, Maharashtra, India.

The total value of the property involved is indicated to be

Rs.1,50,00,00,00,000/- .

4] Mr.Prakash Bankar, claiming to be a social worker, in the

city of Mumbai and involved in Philanthropy and charity work ,

reported about a web site/web portal www.khiladi.com, designed

for OnLine betting/ gambling on Cricket, Football, Tennis, card

games and various other Sports advertised by accused No.1 Rohit

Kumar Murgai and others. The complainant claim that, he

gathered information about it, through various social networking

sites like Facebook, Instagram, Google Ads etc. and claim that the

online betting did not involve any intelligence.

The complainant reported that amongst the icons on the

web site, icon “Get ID Now”, takes Web Portal visitors to various

games like poker, cyber sport, fantasy, on completion of online

registration process and offer options to choose the form of online

betting. The complainant provided information that Khiladi Book

Portal claims to be the world’s largest online betting exchange

and claim to be the fastest connecting bet, providing live online

gaming experience. It is also alleged that the web site is operated

by the Never Ending Gaming NV, with a dishonest intention of

avoiding compliance with Indian Law.

Reference is made to a Company incorporated under laws of

CURACAO and it is alleged that Accused No.1, is considered to be

one of the top 5 match fixers (Cricket) in India and he is investing

money acquired from betting in Crypto currency and parking it in

the said Company.

The Complainant also provided the names of his associates

and it is reported, that it has come to his knowledge that there

are many web sites/web portals, providing online betting and

gambling services and all of them are

connected/controlled/operated in a complex and systematic way

and there exist a nexus, between more than 100 such

subsidiaries, which operate under distinct names.

5] The complainant, in detail provided information about the

modus operandi of the accused, named by him through the

alleged network and the connection is being established between

the Accused, particularly Accused Nos.2, 5, 6, 7, 9.

The longish complaint contain only the following statement,

(running into 24 pages), as regards the Plaintiff, :-

“I am shocked to learn that Accused namely Saurabh Rameshwar

Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal, Shubham Soni, Atul Aggarwal, Lalla

(Dubai), Abhishek (full name now known) and Khanjam

Jagdishkumar Thakkar, Address : 714, 7th Floor, Plot CS-1487,

Prasad Chamb, Tata Road No.2, Roxy Cinema, Opera House,

Girgaon, Mumbaiu City, Maharashtra, and other unknown persons

have committed the crimes of cheating, forgery, defrauding of

valuable security in a well planned and systematic criminal

conspiracy.”

“I was shocked to learn that in order to prevent such illegal

transfer of funds by the Law Enforcement Agencies, funds are

transferred through illegal hawala channels, in cash or USDT,

before disposal to specific individuals or specific accounts with the

help of Accused namely Atual Aggarwal, Lala(Dubai) and Khanjam

Jagdish Kumar Thakkar who coordinate and organize hawala

transactions.”

6] The complaint has narrated that the accused Saurabh

Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal, who have head offices in Dubai,

create profiles of panel owners, who in turn create profile of

players, who are induced to deposit money into certain designated

bank accounts and it is further alleged that 20% of proceeds are

remitted either through dubious banking channels or through

hawala transactions, irrespective of final outcome of

betting/gambling games, and the remaining 80% is retained by

accused Saurabh Chandrakar, Ravi Uppal and their associates.

The lengthy complaint has narrated modus operandi of

Saurabh Chandrakar, who is alleged to have received huge

amounts in crypto currency and the details of certain

transactions and accounts, in which the accused persons received

money, also form part of the complaint. It is alleged that the

transactions involving 100 of crores of rupees and obviously the

transactions made by Saurabh Chandrakar in his crypto wallet

are of astronomical amounts and, therefore, it is important to

thoroughly investigate several aspects of these transactions

through crypto currency.

The complainant in the complaint has also suggested the

manner in which these transactions can be unearthed, as

according to him all the funds are transferred to the finance

wallet and it would be relevant to obtain KYC documents linked to

various accounts/addresses, to receive IP logs, contact details,

email accounts etc. to further investigate the transactions on

crypto channel.

The complainant further make assertion that Accused

Saurabh Chandrakar has strong connection with underworld

persons as he is closely related to Accused No.2 and 3 and it is

learnt that he had met Mushtaqeen, at his residence in UAE in

connection with the Agreement and it is widely talked amongst

the sport lovers, that due to influence and connections with him,

the management of IFFA 2022 decided to enter into a sponsorship

deal with Sports Buzz.

Accused Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to be in partnership with

Mushtaqeen who is described as brother of underworld Don,

Dawood Ibrahim and it is alleged that their money is being

invested in some major developments in Mumbai and Mira Road.

7] On reading of the complaint in its entirety, barring the

reference of the Applicant at two places, which I have reproduced,

in 24 pages of the complaint, no other material is provided.

Taking this complaint as the basis resulting into an FIR

being registered with Matunga Police Station, Respondent No.1

Mr.Waahiid Ali Khan, a Journalist by profession, started running

a story/ series on social platforms owned by Defendant Nos.2 to 4,

by circulating his own views/opinions derived from the complaint.

On 29.11.2023, Wahiid uploaded a post naming the Plaintiff

which reads thus:-

“Kaha hai hawala king Khanjan Thakkar? Does he has a D

company person as a partner? Who is his uncle who handles India

networks? Where is he bought 900 cr. Property? Kaha kaha hai

Khanjan ka India mey office? Many more new information Soon

only on Sshaawn. TV.”

He also posted the identity card of the Plaintiff, with his

photograph thereon.

On 30.11.2023, he uploaded another post, which was

accompanied with the resident identity card of the Applicant of

UAE. The post received 264 views and evidently the projection

of the person described, is in a bad sense.

On 15.12.2023, Waahiid Khan circulated a write up about

issuance of summons to Actor Sahil Khan and three others in

connection with Mahadev App Online betting scandal, alleging a

scam of 15,000 crore illegal betting operation and the act involved

him and his brother, into connecting it with the FIR of Matunga

Police Station, he report that 32 accused are named by Mumbai

Police including the Applicant, who is described by the post as

Hawala Operator.

8] Mr.Waahiid Khan did not stop at this, but he engaged

himself into an activity of relaying his video on YouTube channel

and also circulating it on Facebook.

The video running into 6 minutes 40 seconds, is captioned

as ‘Betting App ka Instagrammers Aur Bollywood Connection

watch with Waahiid Ali Khan”.

The transcript of the said clipping is annexed with the Plaint

in which Mr. Waahiid Khan introduce the promotion of cricket

betting apps. He posed a question about who sponsor the budget

of advertising these Apps and he connect this with the answer

which was offered by Hon’ble Shri. Devendra Fadnavisji, on a

question being posed by a Legislative Assembly member from

Aachalpur, Maharashtra.

The question put by Mr. Bacchu Kadu is about prohibition of

Online gaming in the State of Maharashtra, to which the response

is received from Shri. Devendra Fadnavis, that steps need to be

taken to regulate the same and this aspect shall be duly

examined.

Thereafter. Mr. Waahiid Khan connect this response,

without any basis and offer his own comments on, who is

providing money for promotion of such games and he name Ravi

Uppal, he name Jagdish Thakkar, the Applicant, by accusing them

of running Hawala Racket. He also make accusation that the

Country is put to a loss of Rs.40 Crores minimum per day by

transmitting the money to Dubai, on which Dubai is flourishing.

9] The Defendant No.1 Waahiid Khan continued this series

further by telecasting another interview on 16.12.2023 for 11

minutes 28 seconds, again offering some inputs on Mahadev App,

connecting some response offered by Hon’ble Shri. Devendra

Fadnavis, responding to the question put by one Ashish Shelar, a

senior leader from BJP and once again he name the Applicant by

saying that his name is surfacing time and again, as he runs

Hawala and transferring crores of rupees from India to Dubai.

The transcript of the aforesaid videos is placed alongwith

the Plaint with the necessary certificate from one Kissamago

Services.

10] Apart from the above, there are posts from Mr.Waahiid

Khan, on his Facebook page, which has mention of Applicant’s

name in connection with the special investigating team issuing

summons to Sahil Khan and others in connection with Mahadev

App OnLine.

11] It is these posts which are objected, as being defamatory

and on 09.12.2023 the Advocate of the Plaintiff issued a cease

and desist notice to Defendant No.1, asking him to withdraw the

defamatory information propagated by him OnLine, as well as

through print media and strangely received a reply dated

09.12.2023 denying each and every averment and allegation in

the notice and to the contrary alleging that the notice contain

false and baseless allegations and insinuations, which appear to

have been made with ulterior motive of mentally harassing him,

and in an attempt to extort money or to gain publicity.

There is no denial of publication, circulation of the alleged

defamatory information, but what is important to note is the

response, which is reproduced hereunder :-

“4. My client wish to clarify that he has taken the matter

seriously, as he is committed to conducting his journalistic

endeavours with the highest ethical standards and in full

compliance with the law.

5. My client states that as journalists, he understands the

significant responsibility that comes with reporting on matters of

public interest, and he is fully aware of his rights to freedom of

speech and expressions, as well as the right to disseminate

information that is in the public interest.

6. It is on this basis that he assert his right to address and

discuss the facts related to the case in which you are involved,

without engaging in any form of defamation or malicious intent.

7. My client states his coverage of the case has been grounded

ina commitment to accuracy, fairness, and the pursuit of truth. He

has diligently verified his sources and strived to present a b

alanced and unbiased perspective to his audience. At no point have

he sought to defame or harm the reputation of any individual,

including yourself. Furthermore my client states that you are

alleged as accused no.10 in the same case which is pending and

sub-judice before the competent Court.

8. My client states it is essential to underscore that the right

to freedom of the press is fundamental to a democratic society, and

it serves as a cornerstone of transparency, accountability, and the

public’s right to know. His reporting has aimed to serve these

principles, and we firmly believe that it is in the public interest to

prove accurate and comprehensive information on matters that

impact our community.”

12] It is the case of the Plaintiff, that Defendant No.1 has

circulated defamatory statements against him with malafide

intention and ulterior motive and its circulation, is causing

irreparable loss and injury to his esteem and reputation. It is the

claim of the Plaintiff that the Articles/write ups are clearly

baseless, motivated and defamatory in nature and as per the

Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1, by using the platform of Defendant

Nos.2, 3 and 4 has widely circulated the defamatory Articles,

with specific intention of lowering the image of the Plaintiff, in the

estimation of the public at large and also in the social circles and

this act is actuated by malice and amount to blatant scandal

mongering and is perse defamatory, and causing harm to his

impeccable reputation in public estimation.

It is also alleged that Defendant No.1 is not entitled to form

his opinion and pre-judge the matter and pronounce the

Judgment before the public without being backed up by cogent

evidence.

It is in this background, Mr.Khandeparkar has pressed for

the reliefs in the Interim Application.

13] Defendant No.1 has filed his Reply, adopting a broad stand of

he being a journalist and being conscious of the freedom of speech

and expression and that he consider distribution of information

in the public interest, as his fundamental duty.

In Para 4 of the Reply, Defendant no.1 has justified his

action by stating as under :-

“That his reporting on any case has been based on a dedication to

truth-seeking, impartiality, and correctness. He has worked hard to

ensure that his sources are reliable and has made an effort to give

his audience an objective, fair viewpoint. He has never attempted to

discredit or damage the reputation of anyone, including the Plaintiff.

The Defendant No.1 further states that he had published a video on

his Youtube channel named ‘Waahidd Ali Khan’ about a month ago

wherein he had interviewed a Mr. Amit Majithia.”

That the Plaintiff was then arraigned as an accused in the FIR

registered at Matunga Police Station under Section 420, 465, 467,

468, 461 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, u/s 12(a) of the

Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and u/s 66(d) and

66(f) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which is still pending

and under review by the appropriate court.”

14] The Defendant No.1, being represented by Mr. Rizwan

Merchant has adopted a clear stand, that since the FIR is

registered in which the Plaintiff is arraigned as an accused, the

ongoing investigation conducted by Enforcement Directorate

against the illegal betting App syndicate has been broadcasted by

various media and channels and journalists have covered the

news across the spectrum.

It is the specific stand of Defendant No.1, that the Plaintiff

has falsely and maliciously filed the present Suit for damages, in

order to inflict serious damage to the media spokesperson and he

has emphasized on the freedom of press, as the basic component

of democracy and the basis for responsibility and publics’ right to

information.

Defendant no.1 claims that, he believes that it is in public

interest to provide accurate and thorough information on

matters, that impact the society and his reporting has attempted

to serve these principles and there is no statement made against

the Plaintiff which is defamatory in nature, but it has been

published by him to create public awareness.

15] In words of Cave, J in Scot vs. Samson , 1882 (8) QBD,

“The Law recognizes in every man a right to have the

estimation in which he stands, in the opinion of others,

uneffected by false statement to his discredit.”

Every man possesses an inherent personal right to have his

reputation reserved inviolate.

Any imputation which may tend to lower the image of a

person, in the estimation of right thinking members of society

generally or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule is

defamatory to him. The publication of words defamatory of the

Plaintiff, give rise to prima facie cause of action and the law

presume in favour of such a party, that the words are false unless

the Defendant proves to the contrary.

16] The Tort of Defamation, may be committed either by way of

writing or by way of utterances, and the term ‘libel’ is used to

describe the former, kind of utterances, whereas, the term

‘slander’ is for the later.

A libel is defamation in some permanent form, for eg. a

written or printed defamation, whereas, slander is defamation in

transient form for eg. spoken words, gestures etc.

Cyber defamation is an emerging challenge in the digital era,

it refers to an act of defaming someone online through social

medial, websites, or any other available digital platform.

17] The Law of Defamation, like every other branch of Law of

Torts , expect balancing of interest, between the right of a person

to enjoy his reputation being juxtaposed against freedom of

speech and expression, available to another. The Law of

Defamation protects reputation and the defences to the wrong

namely the truth and privilege stand protected by exercising the

freedom of speech.

Words are prima facie defamatory, if their natural, obvious

and primary sense is defamatory. However, words prima facie

innocent are not actionable unless their secondary or lateral

meaning is proved by the Plaintiff to be defamatory and then the

burden is cast on the Plaintiff to make out the circumstances,

which make them actionable and he shall establish, the

defamatory statement attributed to these words. Such

explanatory statement, referred to as innuendo, is created

where the imputation is made in an oblique way or by way of

question, exclamation or conjecture.

The cause of action based on a true or legal innuendo arises

when reliance is placed or some special circumstances, which

convey to some particular person or persons knowing the

circumstances a special defamatory meaning. In such a cause of

action, there is no exception in case of a publication in media,

because the words would not be so understood by the world at

large, but only by the particular person or persons who know the

special circumstances.

18] The present case is presented by Mr. Khandeparkar, as the

matter, to create a stir in investigative journalism, by adopting

innuendo.

When the write ups by Waahiid Khan on his website are

perused by me, the identity of the Plaintiff is clearly established,

as alongwith the write ups his identity card is also displayed.

The Articles/write ups pose a question, as to who is Khanjan

Thakkar and in the series run by Mr. Khan, he himself offers the

information, which unfortunately is not supported by any

material, but is purely based on the FIR, to which I have made

reference in the as above paragraphs.

Very pertinently, Mr. Merchant representing Mr. Waahiid

Khan would submit that, the Article, is based on an FIR which is

presently under investigation by the SIT. Though he make a tall

claim about the information being disclosed in public interest,

with an avowed object of deterring the public at large from

investing money with some fraudsters, when I asked Mr.Merchant

to point out to the material, to establish that the Plaintiff is also

part of the scam, Mr. Merchant make a statement that his

knowledge is restricted to the FIR.

Unfortunately, the FIR has attributed a limited role to the

Plaintiff and that too in a collective manner by alleging that the

Accused Atual Agarwal, Lala (Dubai) and Khanjan

Jagdishkkumar Thakkar, co-ordinate and organise Hawala

transactions.

Leaving at that, the complainant expected an action against

31 named accused and some unknown persons and these

accusations are under investigation.

19] Under the Law of Defamation, the test of defamatory nature

of a statement is its tendency to insight an adverse opinion on

feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. The words must

result in the Plaintiff to be looked upon with the feeling of hatred,

contempt, ridicule, dislike or to convey an imputation to him or

disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or

business.

In India, like most other common law countries the burden

is proof is on the Defendant to show that the statement is true or

the publication was not intentional.

In S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, a 9 Judge Bench of

the Highest Court has authoritatively held that right of privacy is

a fundamental right and the only permitted exception is where,

there is counter veiling public interest, which in particular

circumstances is strong enough to outweigh it.

20] What the Defendant No.1 is attempting, is investigative

journalism, which is definitely not in the interest of general public

at large, as a Journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise

the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it

definitely cannot be attempted at the cost of defaming the

Plaintiff. The freedom of press, which is being evolved as a species

of speech, definitely will have to be balanced against a right,

which an individual has to his reputation.

Justification by truth is a well accepted defence, which is

available to answer the action, as truth of defamatory words, is

accepted as defence to an action of libel or slander, though not in a

criminal trial. However, what is important is, that the Defendant

must make clear, the particulars of justification and the the case

which he is seeking to set up and justify.