Defamation is an allencompassing term that covers any communication, written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respectregard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person, entity, group, government etc. In India, defamation is both a criminal as well as civil offence. Civil defamation is not codified under a specific legislation, while under criminal law, defamation is bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable offence. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code lists defamation as a criminal offence while Section 500 mentions the punishment for the same. In recent years, a number of suits alleging defamation have been filed in Indian Courts which has led to Indian courts having to interpret and balance the right of freedom of speech and expression with an individual’s right to reputation (which has been held as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution).
Recently in Swami Ramdev vs. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Delhi High Court (”Court”) ordered a ban on the publication, distribution and sale of a book titled ‘Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev’ on the life of the yoga guru Ramdev (”Petitioner”) stating that certain portions of the book were defamatory. The book was written by Priyanka Pathak Narain and published by Juggernaut Books in July 2017.
The Petitioner alleged that the book was an unauthorized biography on his life and contained false and defamatory material which were violative of his fundamental right to privacy and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner submitted that imputations made by the publisher are effectively projecting to the world at large that the Petitioner is not a Sanyasi and has violated his vows by indulging in greed for money and power. The Petitioner further submitted that false allegations have been made regarding fudging yoga camps and that the Petitioner was somehow responsible for the disappearance of Swami Shankar Dev. The author stated that: (i) the entire book was fully protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression; (ii) the book is based on prior publications regarding the Petitioner; and (iii) the public has deep interest in knowing all sides to the persona of a public figure and all aspects of their life must, in a democratic society be scrutinized closely.
In a decision that impacts the publishing industry, the Court has made interesting conclusions between freedom of speech, right to reputation, fair comment and defamation, which include:
The right to reputation of a living individual under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of the right to freedom of speech and expression of another and both have to be harmonized and balanced in as much as no amount of
Damages can redeem the damage to reputation of any person. Merely because there have been previous publications on the same issue, the same does not permit any repetitions of prima facie defamatory insinuations against him.
The Court held that whatever may be of the interest to the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach of privacy. An individual thus has a right to protection to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only against false truth but also certain truths. Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner is a public figure but pointed out that such did not ipso facto give a licence to the author and the publisher to defame him.
The meaning of the words alleged to be defamatory will be decided by the Judge bearing in mind the test of an ordinary man. The Court mentioned several book reviews that been published and considered the fact that though there were comments on the internet stating that the book is unbiased, there were equal comments stating that the Petitioner is a villain. Consequently, the Court considered the record on the basis of what an ordinary reasonable reader would think of the contents of the book.
The Court held that to be justifiable as fair comment, it must appear as a comment and not mixed up with facts such that the reader cannot distinguish between what is reported and what is comment and a comment must not convey imputations of disreputable motive unless adequately supported with evidence.
The Court highlighted the fact that the Petitioner about whom the book is written is a human being and thus entitled to be treated with dignity and has a right of social reputation as an ordinary citizen even if he be a public figure and as reputation is cherished value and an element of personal security, portions of the book which make the readers think that he is ambitious villain until so proved in the court of law are necessarily to be restrained from being published and distributed for sale till disposal of the suit pending before the Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi. In light of the same, the Court ordered deletion of references to the disappearance of Swami Shankar Dev and murder of Swami Yogananda, stating that there was no evidence to support the Petitioner’s connection to the same.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
