In a very significant development, we all have noticed as to how so very commendably, courageously, cogently and convincingly, the Delhi High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mahaveer Singhvi vs Hindustan Times Ltd & Ors in CS(OS) 2033/2007 & CS(OS) 2034/2007 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:DHC:4749 that was reserved on 16th January, 2024 and then finally pronounced on 31st May, 2024 has rejected two defamation suits that had been filed by 1999 batch Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer Mahaveer Singhvi against the most esteemed 100-years old Hindustan Times newspaper, its Hindi daily Hindustan, two former editors Vir Sanghvi and Mrinal Pandey and two reporters named Saurabh Shukla and Rakesh Kumar Singh. We must note here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court very rightly rejected the 17-year-old defamation suits after noting rationally that the three articles published by Hindustan Times and Hindustan newspapers were not per se defamatory. The High Court held most explicitly that:
Balancing the right of information of the public with the duty of the Media of truthful reporting and the individual right of protection of his reputation, it is held that the Articles which are the subject matter of the two suits are not per se defamatory.

It must be pointed out here that this sagacious judgment begins with the time-tested dictum that:
Reputation, fragile as it may be, has the tenacity to withstand untruthful assault on it. It is the truthfulness of one’s character which ultimately prevails. The Delhi High Court also observed that a person’s reputation is not so fragile that it becomes undone by an unsavoury incident from years earlier, at the beginning of one’s career. This alone explains why my very best friend Sageer Khan very rightly said way back in 1993 in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh that:
Reputation is what people think you are and character is what actually you are. So always care most for your character and not just reputation. Reputation once lost can be earned back but character once lost is lost forever which alone explains why it is said that when you lose money you lose nothing, when you lose time you lose something very precious but when you lose your character, you lose everything in life and so always value most your character in life and accord it the highest priority in life for there can be just no substitute ever of it.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The aforesaid two Suits have been filed by the plaintiff seeking compensation/damages in the sum of Rs. 5 Crores each for loss of his reputation, against the defendants.

While delving into the background of the plaintiff’s life, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
The plaintiff in his student life, was a well-known figure of Rajasthan and various newspapers continuously highlighted his scholastic achievements. He possessed an extraordinary brilliant academic record and was an achiever and had received Gold Medal from Rajasthan University. He was selected for the Union Civil Services by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) twice in the year 1995 and in the year 1999 and also for Rajasthan Administrative Service Examination. In the year 1999, the plaintiff got appointed in the Indian Foreign Service. He joined Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration on 20.09.1999. His conduct and performance was appreciated during his training period and the appreciation letters were issued to him. Thereafter, he joined the Foreign Service Institute, New Delhi and his work was again appreciated during his tenure with the FSI.

To put things in perspective, the Bench as we see then envisages in para 3 that, The plaintiff has claimed that the Newspaper Hindustan Times/defendant No. 1 represented through its publisher Mr. Rakesh Sharma and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Vir Sanghvi and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, the Editor and the correspondent respectively, published an Article on 19.07.2002, under the heading - IFS PROBATIONER SACKED AFTER TAPES - PROVE‖ MISCONDUCT‖. Similar news got published in the Hindi Edition of the Newspaper Hindustan on 21.07.2002 under the caption ―shadi se inkar karne par adhikari ne yuvti ka jeena haram kiya‖. It is claimed that these Articles that were published in the two Newspapers, were in gross violation of the norms of journalistic conduct issued by Press Council of India. There is not even an iota of truth in the facts mentioned in these Articles in regard to the obnoxious conversation with a woman on tape and abusive and expletive language used by the plaintiff. The such conversation never took place with any woman at any point of time despite which defamatory facts got published in this regard with ulterior motive of defaming the plaintiff in public.

As we see, the Bench points out in para 4 that:
The plaintiff has alleged that with the intention of maligning him and with the motive of character assassination, the Article had been published very cleverly with stories about some other person but the whole weight and unity of impression of the Article fell upon the plaintiff, which resulted in utmost damage to him. This Article is claimed to have been published in conspiracy with some disgruntled persons.

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 5 that:
The plaintiff has asserted that the statements/observation made in the Article, is in fact capable of being understood in defamatory sense and the word sentences used in the Article, have actually hurt and caused harm to the reputation and clean image of the plaintiff. The Article as a whole, including the title, language, words and the context, have definitive defamatory meaning which is apparent from the bare reading of the two Articles.

Further, the Bench discloses in para 6 that:
The defendants published another Article on 30.08.2002 in English News Daily Hindustan Times to cover up the wrong done by them with the heading ―Foreign Office in a quandary over probationer‘s sacking.‖ The contents of this Article reflect that it is contradictory to its earlier Article making it clear that the earlier Article dated 19.07.2002, was baseless and was published in bad faith.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 62 that:
Through the concept of unjust harm to reputation, defamation laws tend to measure the right to freedom of expression against the right of a person to maintain their reputation. Therefore, an analysis of the law of defamation also requires an understanding of right to freedom of speech and expression, right to reputation of an individual and right of citizens to information in a Democratic society.

While citing a renowned and relevant case law, the Bench postulates in para 63 that:
In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 the Apex Court observed that freedom of the press means the right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views. The freedom of the Press simultaneously embodies the right of the people to read and information.

Most significantly, the Bench propounds in para 64 that:
In today’s free world, freedom of Press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the Press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. The Apex Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 categorically held:

Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities…It is with a view to checking such malpractices which interfere with free flow of information, democratic Constitutions all over the world have made provisions guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression laying down the limits of interference with it. It is, therefore, the primary duty of all the Courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate.

While citing a very recent and relevant case law, the Bench expounds in para 66 that:
In Bloomberg Television Production Services India pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd. SLP (C) No. 6696/2024 the Apex court observed that in suits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or journalists, an additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind.

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 69 that:
It is the primary function of the Press to provide comprehensive and correct information, especially when it is brought into the public domain. The action of defamation about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic set-up, as was observed by Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay v. Ravindra Ghisulal Gupta Crl. Appl. No. 393/2022.

Be it noted, the Bench while citing yet another relevant case law notes in para 70 that:
In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 632 the Apex Court held that any publication based upon public records including court records is unobjectionable as it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by Press and Media. It was further held that it would be sufficient for members of Press or Media to prove that they acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for the Press to prove that what has been written is true.

Furthermore, the Bench mentions in para 71 that:
Further, in Jawaharlal Darda and Ors. v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar & Anr, (1998) 4 SCC 112 the Apex Court observed that the accused believing the version to be true, published the report in good faith, then it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the Complainant.

It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench notes in para 79 that:
The Newspaper reporting stated that another set of Tapes circulating in the Ministry of External Affairs has taken a toll on plaintiff, an IFS probationary officer who had been sacked because of his misconduct as the tapes proved that he had obnoxious conversation with the woman. The Article says that the reason for this sacking was apparently the tapes that were heard by the then Foreign Minister who ordered the immediate discharge of the IFS.

The Newspaper Article mentions that as per IFS Conduct Rules, probationer can be sacked without the Notice, but in this present case an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Secretary initially. But, once the Minister passed the Order, the action against the Officer was instant. The News further reported that though the plaintiff was due for a foreign posting, the conversations on the tape were so incriminating that an extreme action taken against him became inevitable.

It was also added that the action taken was to send a strong message in foreign office that misconduct would not be tolerated. Similar incident involving another Officer was reported, wherein the Officer who had apparently misbehaved with a local female employee in the Consulate in Istanbul, but it was observed that seemingly it had been brushed under the carpet and he was apparently rewarded because of his proximity with the senior Officers. The news Article was concluded by observing that Foreign Office hands feel that new team will have to crack down with an iron hand on officials who sully the MEA’s image and often get swayed because of some key official’s patronage.

It is worth noting that the Bench minces just no words to hold unquestionably in para 80 that:
From the entire Newspaper Article, it is quite evident that it is a neutral reporting of an incident wherein it has been reported that there was a Tape concerning the plaintiff, containing obnoxious language received in the office of MEA and while the enquiry was being conducted by the Additional Secretary, the Minister took the call of discharging the plaintiff without any enquiry because he was a Probationary Officer. Essentially, this is a truth i.e. statement of facts which have merely been reported.

The fact is that it is a balanced reporting without imputing any misconduct on the part of the plaintiff; rather another similar instance has been referred to and it has also been observed that in the said incident, the Officer was able to get away without any action only because of his personal patronage with the Senior Officers.

From the entire Article, it cannot be inferred that there were any malicious false allegations or conduct attributed to the plaintiff. Rather, the truth of initiation of an enquiry and during its pendency, discharge of the plaintiff while on Probation, is not in dispute. That a Tape containing obnoxious conversation of a woman, is also not disputed. No other facts have been mentioned in the Newspaper Article. It is evident that the reporting was a fair comment, based on their sources and was not defamatory.

Truth be told, the Bench observes in para 82 that:
It is evident that consequent to the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) staying the Order of sacking the plaintiff, resulted in blame game in the Foreign Office. It is further reported that the sacking episode has become intriguing with some new facts having come to the light. The MEA Order sacked the official on the ground that he was still on Probation and could be discharged, however, CAT was not satisfied. It also reports about the inputs that the Reporter had from South Block insiders that such an action taken by MEA was unprecedented in the history of Foreign Service, as the decision had been taken without any inquiry. The Insider had even reported that nobody knows the truth as the decision had been taken in a hush hush manner.

It would be pertinent to note that the Bench notes in para 83 that:
The tone and tenure of the reporting again reflects a simplicitor statement of fact and certain insertions based on the inside information obtained by the Reporter. It is a known fact that the Reporters collect information from their independent sources which are protected from disclosure being privileged. None of the statement as reported in this Article can be said to be maligning the image of the plaintiff. Rather, it has the intonations of condemning the act of sacking of the plaintiff without any inquiry.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench points out in para 88 that:
It may be thus concluded that the Newspaper Articles have in the neutral/truthful manner have simply reported the news on the basis of the information collected from the verified sources. The Reply that got subsequently filed by Union of India corroborates the truthfulness of the reported News and it cannot be said that the reporting was either malicious or not made in good faith. The defendants have merely discharged their duty of bringing news in public domain of which the public at large, has a right to information.

Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 89 that:
In the end, it may be observed that the plaintiff may have genuine grievance against the woman whose conversations were allegedly contained in the Tapes received in the Ministry, but apparently, the plaintiff is already pursuing his independent remedy against her. If it is any solace, one may observe that reputation is not so fragile that it can be ruined or demolished by some unsavory incident which happened in the beginning of the career of the plaintiff. Reputation is what one builds over a period of time by his conduct and work. The entire incident may have left the plaintiff completely shattered and distraught, but it is his conviction in his truthfulness that gave him the courage to stand for his rights and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to win back his honour by reinstatement in his job.

Most brilliantly, the Bench mandates in para 90 that:
Balancing the right of information of the public with the duty of the Media of truthful reporting and the individual right of protection of his reputation, it is held that the Articles which are the subject matter of the two suits, are not per se defamatory.

Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 96 that:
In view of the findings on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. He is, however, directed to make good the deficit Court Fee within six weeks. In case he fails to pay the requisite Court Fee, the Registrar General may initiate the proceedings for recovery of the Court Fee as the Land Revenue.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh