Lord Nicholls expressed that the matter concerned the interaction between two fundamental rights: the freedom of expression and protection of reputation. In the context of a matter of political importance at page 614, accepting the dictum laid down by Lord Denning MR in the case of London Artists Ltd. Vs. Littler [1962] 2 All ER 193 that public interest should not be confined within narrow limits for commenting fairly upon it, he observed that the fairness had to be judged by an objective standard of any fair- minded person who could honestly express the opinion. He observed:
"comment must be relevant to the facts to which it is addressed. It cannot be used as a cloak for mere invective". .... "It is important to keep in mind that this defence is concerned with the protection of comment, not imputations of fact. If the imputation is one of fact, a ground of defence must be sought elsewhere. Further, to be within this defence the comment must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact. The comment must explicitly or implicity indicate at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made". ..... "One constraint does exist upon this defence. The comment must represent the honest belief of its author. If the plaintiff proves he was actuated by malice, this ground of defence will fail".
Bombay High Court
Kokan Unnati Mitra Mandal & Ors vs Bennet Coleman
& Co. Ltd. & Ors on 9 November, 2011
& Co. Ltd. & Ors on 9 November, 2011
Bench: R. S. Dalvi
