New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday awarded Rs 2 crore as compensation for reputational damage to Major General MS, saying, “Truth is considered to be the best antidote against slander…Yet, truth does not have the power to restore lost reputation in the society.” Ahluwalia In the revelations in 2001 News bulletin Tehelka,
In Tehelka2001 Sting Operation, Operation West End, Maj. Gen. Ahluwalia, Who was it Then He was accused of being a corrupt officer serving at the Army Headquarters.
Ahluwalia approached the Delhi High Court in 2002, arguing that the allegations of demanding bribes and whiskey had tarnished his image and reputation. action taken against Tehelkaits editor-in-chief and correspondent ofbut also against Zee Telefilms and its officials who broadcast reports on its channels.
In a detailed order passed more than two decades later, the court agreed Ahluwalia in connection with the case against him Tehelka And journalists say that the parts of the transcript that included the demand for bribes were not authentic, because Ahluwalia never said so.
In fact, the court said that such things alleging corruption were “a figment of imagination/perception”. Tehelka reporter. It agreed with Ahluwalia that the transcript was tampered with to manipulate the recording with editorial comments without facts, and therefore no case of corruption could be made out.
High Court Justice Nina Bansal gave this instruction to the news platform TehelkaIts Then Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal, journalists Anirudh Behl and Mathew Samuel will have to pay Rs 2 crore as damages for “negligent reporting” that defamed Ahluwalia.
However, the court did not find a case against Zee and was confined to the functions of its related entities, as was the case of the plaintiff Tehelka, it said Zee Can’t be held liable for defamation.
‘Operation West End’
‘Operation West End’ was run by journalists Bahl and Samuel, who posed as representatives of a fictitious London-based defense manufacturing firm.
Tehelka Telecasted video and ‘doctored transcripts’ revealed that the London firm (West End) was using middlemen in positions of power, exposing alleged defense corruption in the Indian Army.
One such transcript records that Ahluwalia was paid a bribe of Rs 50,000.
Before the High Court, Ahluwalia argued that the allegations were “false, motivated, mischievous”, only to lower the officer’s self-esteem in the eyes of the public. He said that the reports question his character and reputation and have been published deliberately without ascertaining the facts. He also claimed that the reports have been tampered with.
apologies futile
Justice Bansal said Ahluwalia was harmed by the reports and the apology was inadequate and meaningless in the light of the facts as the plaintiff had been living with infamy for more than two decades.
The court said, “The reputation of the plaintiff has been hurt as he has not only suffered a lowering of his value in the eyes of the public, but his character has also been maligned by serious allegations of corruption, which no amount of subsequent deputation can cure or rectify.”
In the order, Justice Bansal noted that Ahluwalia was a distinguished person, holding the rank of Major General in the Army and much maligned by the transcript, who did not accept the bribe “despite all efforts of the respondent”.
It added, “Nothing can be worse defamation and slander to an honest and respectable person than to make a false allegation of demanding and then accepting a bribe of Rs 50,000.”
The court further held that the editorial comments added by Behl in the said tape were not authentic, but a figment or imagination/impression of another reporter, Samuel, who had met Ahluwalia. The court said, since the alleged corruption was based on doctored transcripts, there was no case of corruption against the Major General.
It was also observed that the law of defamation does not require investigation of actual damages or proof of damages, it is actionable “per se”. This means that on proof of the publication of the defamatory statements, at least nominal damages must be awarded.
picture of fantasy
The court also considered whether the accused could avail of any defense under the defamation law, which would not make them liable for defamation.
It was observed that the veracity of the published statements cannot be taken as a defense in this case as the statements alleging corruption were completely fictitious and were never made by Ahluwalia, nor could any such assumption be made.
Justice Bansal also rejected Tehelkaargues that ‘Operation West End’ was undertaken for the ‘public good’ to expose corruption in defense procurement across the world.
“The object and purpose may be in public interest, but it does not entitle any agency to make false statement or allegation on the plaintiff merely to create sensation among the general public,” the court said.
It states that the comments cannot be classified as “fair comment” as they have been unable to establish any good faith on their part with respect to the report.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)