The Bombay High Court granted an interim order in the suit against the Defendants, particularly Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, claiming that the said Defendants have caused defamatory news articles to be published on their e-paper “Sprouts”, which has been circulated on the Facebook page and Twitter account of Defendant No. 1.
The Court observed that no material is placed on record on behalf of the said Defendants to indicate as to the nature of articles or other material allegedly brought into the public domain by the Plaintiffs for benefiting the deputy Chief minister or other politicians as a quid pro quo for having attended the aforesaid event.
Brief Facts:
The Court had found the articles to be prima facie defamatory, and hence granted interim order. The Plaintiffs have raised a grievance against the said articles, for the reason that it is stated in the said articles that Plaintiff No. 2, being the editor of Marathi Daily “Loksatta” had attended a lunch hosted by the deputy Chief Minister, he had taken lunch at the said event and that he had also received a gift in the form of a voucher during the said event. It is indicated that by such actions, Plaintiff No. 2 had compromised the hallowed principles that journalists are supposed to follow and that he also caused articles published in Marathi Daily that allegedly favored the deputy Chief minister and other politicians.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a perusal of the affidavit in reply filed in the present application would show that the said Defendants have sought to justify their actions. It is stated that other than claiming that the actions of the Plaintiff No. 2 resulted in comprising the high standards of journalism, there is no other justification given in the affidavit in reply.
Further, he placed much emphasis on the alleged admission on the part of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 2 did, in fact, attend the event in the context of which the said articles/ news reports were published in the e-paper of Defendant Nos. 1and 2.
Contentions of the Defendant:
The Learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that they have been added as parties to ensure compliance with the directions that this Court may grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that there does not appear to be even prima facie justification offered by the said Defendants for publishing the said news reports/articles in its e-paper. Although reference is made to the alleged compromise with the high standards of journalism due to the actions of Plaintiff No. 2, there are no details forthcoming.
The Court remarked that according to Defendant No. 1, merely because Plaintiff No. 2, who is the editor of a well-known Marathi Daily, attended an event hosted by the deputy Chief minister, it was enough to make such allegations against the Plaintiffs. It is also noted by this Court that no material is placed on record on behalf of the said Defendants to indicate as to the nature of articles or other material allegedly brought into the public domain by the Plaintiffs for benefiting the deputy Chief minister or other politicians as a quid pro quo for having attended the aforesaid event.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the application, held that a strong prima facie case is made out on behalf of the Applicants/Plaintiffs for the grant of ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c).
Case Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. & Anr. v Unmesh Padmakar Gujarathi & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manish Pitale
Case no.: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 35506 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud
Advocate for the Defendant: Mr. Vishal Shriyan, Mr. Akash Menon, and Mr. Alankar Kirpekar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
