Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs Durdana Zamir
2009 Latest Caselaw 693 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                Date of Reserve: January 22, 2009
                                                    Date of Order: March 02, 2009

+ IA No.10367/2007 in CS(OS) 569/2006
%                                                                           02.03.2009
      Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad                                             ...Plaintiff
      Through: Mr. Abhay N. Da, Advocate

       Versus

       Durdana Zamir                                   ...Defendant
       Through: Mr. Bahar U. Burai with Mr. Hanif Mohammad, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                                           Yes.

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                   Yes.


       ORDER

IA No.10367/2007

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for damages on account of

defamation and for permanent injunction on the ground that defendant filed a

complaint before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell allegedly making

defamatory allegations against him. The plaintiff claimed damages to the

tune of Rs.20 lac from the defendant.

2. The excerpts of the complaint which, according to the plaintiff

amounted to his defamation and entitled him to damages are as follows:

"(i) On the issue of dowry, my husband's mother Jamila Begum, Nand (husband's sister Rakahanda), Second Nand (Rafia), my husband's Khala Hasina and second Khala Sabina and Khaloo Imtiaz Ahmad

CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 1 Of 6 Ansari raised considerable noise (Hangama) and they were calm down by efforts of my relatives.

(ii) In my in-laws' house, my husband's Khala (Aunt) and Khaloo (uncle), who lives in JNU, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad and his wife Sabina has considerable influence (dakhal).

(iii) You are requested to help me.............to see that there is no interference in my family affairs of my husband's aunt and uncle who live in JNU".

3. It is contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff was a highly reputed

person. He was a professor of Sociology at JNU. He was internationally known

and was visiting professor in number of universities in USA, Canada, Italy and

UK. He was a man of international academic standards and had taken part in

number of national and international conferences and was a familiar voice on

AIR, BBC, NDTV, ETV etc. He stated that he had no contact with the

defendant‟s family or with the family of her husband except that he had

attended the marriage. At one point of time, the relations between defendant

and her husband became estranged and she had come to his house

accompanied by her father, mother and brother and asked him to interfere in

the matter. However, since he was not willing to take any interest or

intervene in the matter, he refused. He stated that on the basis of the

complaint made by the defendant, an FIR No.611 under Sections 406, 498A

and 34 Indian Penal Code was registered by the police and he had to obtain

anticipatory bail.

4. It is submitted by plaintiff that in the complaint made by defendant, he

has been portrayed as a perpetrator of dowry demand and in his name Ansari

CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 2 Of 6 has been deliberately added since „Ansaris‟ belong to lower community viz

„Julaha‟. He claimed that he was renowned social psychologist and because of

the assertions made by the defendant in her complaint to CAW Cell and other

authorities, his reputation received severe dent in academic circles and

among his colleagues and also towards the mammoth work that he has done

for the betterment of the society in general.

5. Defendant has made the instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 of

CPC stating therein that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and

was liable to be dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff was based upon the facts

stated in a complaint made by the defendant to lawful authorities regarding

her grievance against her in-laws. The FIR lodged by her was under

investigation and it has not been held by any Court that the allegations made

by the complainant (defendant herein) were false.

6. During arguments, it was also submitted that even if the allegations

are taken per se correct, no case for defamation of the plaintiff was made out

from the averments made in the complaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff,

however, denied that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and

submitted that the allegations made in the complaint by the defendant has

lowered the image of the plaintiff in the eyes of society.

7. Under law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement

is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons

towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the

ordinary, right thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The

words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or

CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 3 Of 6 regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or dis-

esteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office,

profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a

person to another's reputation. Since, it is considered that a man's reputation,

in a way, is his property and reputation may be considered to be more

valuable than any other form of property. Reputation of a man primarily and

basically is the opinion of friends, relatives, acquittance or general public

about a man. It is his esteem in the eyes of others. The reputation spread by

communication of thought and information from one to another. Where a

person alleges that his reputation has been damaged, it only means he has

been lowered in the eyes of right thinking persons of the society or his

friends/relatives. It is not enough for a person to sue for words which merely

injure his feeling or cause annoyance to him. Injury to feeling of a man cannot

be made a basis for claiming of damages on the ground of defamation. Thus,

the words must be such which prejudice a man's reputation and are so

offensive so as to lower a man's dignity in the eyes of others. Insult in itself is

not a cause of action for damages on the ground of defamation.

8. Where the words are used without giving impression of an oblique

meaning but the Plaintiff pleads an innuendo, asking the Court to read the

words in a manner in which the Plaintiff himself understands it, the Plaintiff

has to plead that the libel was understood by the readers with the knowledge

of subject or extensive facts as was being understood by the Plaintiff.

9. The plaintiff‟s submissions that adding of caste"Ansari" against his

name was per say defamatory is very strange. The plaintiff claims to be the

professor of sociology working for the betterment of the society. If a professor

CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 4 Of 6 of sociology has a notion and thought that "Ansari" was a caste of lower class

since it represents "Julaha‟ community, I can only take pity upon such „highly

respected‟ and qualified professors‟. „Julaha‟ means „weavers‟. If those who

weave clothes so that men may dress themselves, are of lower caste than

those who get dressed and are ungrateful must be of much lower caste, even

if they are professors. The allegations of plaintiff, who is professor are painful.

The Constitution of India does not recognize that caste of any person confers

any superiority or inferiority on him vis-à-vis others. The Constitution only

recognizes deprived classes under which Scheduled Castes or Scheduled

Tribes fall and mandates positive action only to bring them at par with the

other members of the society so that they are not discriminated by so-called

high castes people. If a professor of sociology in our country has this standard

of social betterment, then God help this society.

10. The other imputations made to the defendant are also not defamatory

in nature. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was not present at the

marriage. It is the case of the plaintiff himself that he attended the marriage

of the defendant. If it is stated that a Hungama was created by many from in-

laws of the defendant, including the plaintiff, that does not mean that the

defendant made defamatory imputations against the plaintiff or the

defendant made a statement to cause an adverse opinion or hatred feelings

of other persons towards the plaintiff. As has already been observed above

the statement is to be judged by the standard of an ordinary person. The

alleged words must have resulted in the plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or

inculcated a feeling of hatred and condemn. The plaintiff continues to be the

professor in JNU and he continues to a known voice at different TV Channels.

It is not the case that people have abandoned him or boycotted him because

CS (OS) 569.06 Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir Page 5 Of 6 of this imputation. The plaintiff has not named a single person who had

changed his opinion after filing of the complaint by the defendant.

11. Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of her

grievances to the authorities. Whenever a person makes a complaint against

someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint he makes imputations

against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person

has publicized or publicly made defamatory averments against a person. If a

prosecution is initiated against the person on the basis of such averments and

the person is acquitted holding that the complaint was false, then only a

cause of action arises against the complainant for launching a case for false

prosecution or for damages on other grounds. Until and unless a competent

court holds that complaint was false, no cause of action arises. Approaching a

competent authority and praying that the authority should come to the

rescue of the complainant and prevent inference of the plaintiff in the family

affairs of the defendant cannot amount to a defamatory imputation per se

and even if it is published, it does not tend to show that the defendant had

intended to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, I consider that the

plaint, even if taken to be true, does not disclose any cause of action against

the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and is hereby

dismissed.

March 02, 2009                                   SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CS (OS) 569.06            Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad vs. Durdana Zamir   Page 6 Of 6