The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by website tehelka.com and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs 2 crore in damages to Major General M.S. Ahluwalia in a defamation case filed back in 2002.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that there was neither any apparent error on the face of record nor had the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake, which could be corrected within the ambit of review.
The website had carried a story in March 2001 depicting Ahluwalia as an alleged corrupt middleman in the defence deals relating to import of new defence equipment. A video tape and transcript also alleged that Ahluwalia accepted a bribe of Rs 50,000 from one of the reporters.
This story gained wide publicity through various media channels and led to initiation of a Court of Inquiry against Ahluwalia by the Indian Army.
The Armyman moved the High Court, which directed the website, its former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal, Bahal and journalist Mathew Samuel to pay Rs two crore to Ahluwalia, along with costs of the suit, for defaming the Army officer on July 21.
The same Bench observed in its July verdict that Ahluwalia’s reputation had suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption, which no subsequent refutation could either redress or heal.
The website and its co-founder sought review of this order on the grounds that Ahluwalia did not tender any evidence or place on record the video clip of the sting operation as aired by Zee Telefilms.
The Indian Army officer had previously sent a legal notice seeking an apology, but it was refused by the defendants.
The single-judge Bench had observed that an apology at this stage became irrelevant as the plaintiff had already suffered the Court of Inquiry and had been punished with severe displeasure qua his conduct, which was held to be unbecoming of an Army Officer.
It said that Ahluwalia, an honest Army Officer who had rejected bribes, had suffered significant harm to his reputation due to the false statements made about him.
The High Court further noted that the Court of Inquiry gave a clean chit to Ahluwalia and severe displeasure was awarded only because of his conduct of agreeing to meet with people of doubtful credentials.
It said a service discipline and not the integrity or character of the plaintiff (Ahluwalia) was questioned in the present case.
The single-judge Bench noted that to borrow the triple test, this false statement about the plaintiff to his discredit exposed him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, which caused him to be shunned or avoided, or which had a tendency to injure him in his office, professional or trade and consequently tended to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
While the website’s objective might have been in the public interest, it did not justify fabricating false statements to sensationalise the story among the general public, added the Bench.
The High Court did not find any evidence against Zee Telefilm Limited, its former Chairman Subhash Chandra, and former Chief Executive Officer Sandeep Goyal to support Ahluwalia’s claim of defamation against them.