Nirmaljit Singh Narula vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3103 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+          CS(OS) 1137/2012 and I.A. No.7579/2012

%                               Judgment decided on : 10.05.2012

NIRMALJIT SINGH NARULA                      ..... Plaintiff
                Through Mr Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with
                        Mr S.K. Maniktala, Mr A. Sarkar,
                        Mr R.K. Chaudhary and Mr Varun
                        Panta, Advs.
       versus


STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.                ..... Defendants
                 Through Mr Sidharth Chopra, Adv. for
                          Defendants No.1 & 2.
                          Mr Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with
                          Mr Rajiv Sarin and Mr Sooraj, Advs.
                          for Defendants No.8 and 9.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. Mr Nirmaljit Singh Narula, plaintiff herein, filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for Rs.50 crores for defamation against seven defendants, including, defendant No.1 Star India Pvt. Ltd., Mr Uday Shanker, CEO of defendant No.1, Mr Shrivardhan Trivedi and Ms Sumaira Khan, both Anchors of defendant No.1.

2. When the suit and interim application were listed first time on 24.04.2012, summons and notice were issued to the defendants for 27.04.2012.

3. On 27.04.2012, Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate,

appeared on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, who informed the Court orally that it is the Media Contents and Communication Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who was telecasting the news on the Star News Channel. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were not necessary parties to the suit. He was granted time to file the affidavit in this regard and the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2012 for taking necessary steps by the plaintiff.

4. On 01.05.2012, the plaintiff‟s two applications, filed under Order I, Rule 10 CPC and Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, were allowed and defendants No.8 and 9 were impleaded. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the amended memo of parties and plaint. Dasti summons and notice were issued to the said parties for 07.05.2012. On 07.05.2012, when the matter was listed, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, was pressing for interim protection immediately on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. On the other hand, Mr Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.8 and 9, sought time to file the written-statement and reply to the interim application. As Mr Lekhi was insisting for interim protection due to the nature of urgent matter, defendants No.8 and 9 were given two days‟ time to file short affidavit to put their stand about the allegation made in the plaint before filing written statement and reply. Prayer for interim protection was strongly opposed by Mr Agnani. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 was pressing for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The said request was opposed by Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff. Service report for other defendants is still awaited.

5. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff against the Star News

Channel as alleged in the plaint is that :-

(a) The plaintiff‟s teachings and preaching emphasize the values of true, selfless prayer and devotion to one‟s duties and guide his followers/devotees to abstain from, rather shun the path of „mantra‟, „tantra‟, or „yantra‟, or in other words „black magic‟ or „tantric practices‟. The plaintiff teaches his followers to spiritually evolve their lives by believing in the ultimate powers of the religion they follow.

(b) The plaintiff started holding Holy Samagams (congregation) where the followers/devotees come to hear his spiritual discourses and seek his blessings. The workings and programs of the „Darbar‟ and his discourses are telecast/advertised through various TV Channels (numbering over 35) in the name of "Third Eye of Nirmal Baba". Such programs are watched daily by about 10 million devotees/follower of the plaintiff and enjoy high TRP rating. During the week 1.4.2012 to 7.4.2012, the Program "Third Eye of Nirmal Baba" was most viewed program with rating of 9 out of the top eleven (most viewed) programs in Hindi speaking market.

(c) The TV programs of the plaintiff ("Third Eye of Nirmal Baba") was also telecasted on various TV Channels of defendant No.1 such as the "Star News" and the Star Utsav. In fact, the said programs of the plaintiff have constantly been telecasted on Star News TV Channel of defendant No.1 over the last about 18 months. However, for the last few days, particularly, since April 2012, defendant No.1 started a sinister and malicious

campaign on its Star News TV Channel to defame and malign the plaintiff in every possible manner. Since then, defendant No.1 has continuously and deliberately been relaying/telecasting programs defaming and ridiculing the plaintiff („Nirmal Babaji‟), the „Nirmal Darbar‟ and his spiritual programs being aired in the name of the „Third Eye of Nirmal Baba‟ by accusing the plaintiff guilty of a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment.

(d) That defendant No.1 by its scurrilous offensive, intimidatory, derogatory and malicious attack through its said programs, telecasts, inter alia, „Sansani‟, „Vishesh‟, Subah Fatafat, 24 Ghante reporter has been casting defamatory aspersions upon the character, ability and integrity of the plaintiff (Babaji) and the „Nirmal Darbar‟. This is nothing but a persistent and gross violation and misuse of the freedom of press and the freedom of the plaintiff enshrined under the Constitution of India.

6. In para 13 and part of para 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made the following statements:

"13. The defendants in their tirade against the plaintiff have repeatedly accused him of wrong doing casting serious aspersions as to his integrity and honesty and character. He has repeatedly been called as a „thug, fraud, and cheat. The defendants have in one of their telecasts stated "Aur puri tarah se thagi ki ja rahi hai". In another program, it has been stated by the defendants "iske vipreet job hi vyakti kaam karta hai vo thag hai.", "Pakhand karar kiya hai jo TV par karyakaram main dave kiye ja rahe hai jo tarike apnaiye ja rahe hai aur jinse yah tam bhara jar aha hai", "Nirmal Baba ek fraudy hai", "ye bahut hi fraud", "Iss prakaar ke babbey who humare desh ko loot rahe hain", "Nirmal jo

kuch bhi kar raha hai wo theek nahi kar raha", "Baba vasatav mai logon ko kripa den eke bat kahae kart hag raha hai", "Yaani jo baba galat dhang se logon ko gumrah karke"... ... "logon ko bewkoof bana rahe hai" ... ... "baba dharma ke naam par dhanda kar rahe hai", "baba jo kar rahe hain bho sida sida thagi hai,", "ham sida dhekha sakte hain ki kogon ko bhekbkhuf hi bana rahe hain", "baba vastava mein aam aadmin ko kirpa dene ki baat keh kar unko thag rahe hain", "Iss tarah ke tamaam baba hai iss tarah ki ghotaalebaaz dhokebaaz babao ke paas logon ko jaana nahin chahiye", "aise ghotaalebaaz baba desh mein dher saare hai".

15. The defendant have further used utter derogatory and defamatory expressions qua the plaintiff by stating "who thag hai" and that "Iske vipreet job he vayakti kam kar raha hai vo thag hai to us se bachna chahiye", and "television ko bhi karishme karamaato ka madhyam banana ki koshish ho rahi hai", and calling the plaintiff "ye ghotaalebaaz baba", "Mujhe lagta hai ki yeh aastha ke mandir mein apni dukan chala rahe hain" and "aur iss prakaar ke babey who humare desh ko loot rahe hain", and that "aise babaon ko Hindustan main vajud hi nahin hona chahiye........."

7. Following prayers are made in the interim application :

"(a) Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 5 by themselves and their agents, officers, employees, partners, associates, servants, representatives, successors, attorneys and assignees etc. from telecasting, selling, leasing, licensing, writing, publishing, hosting, advertising, or in any other manner or form, any existing or future content that is defamatory about the plaintiff whether written by defendant No.1 or any other person on its TV Channel - „Star News‟ and its Website (NewsBullet.in) and/or other Channel/Website associated with the said defendant and any of their other print/electric media;

(b) Pass an order of temporary injunction against defendant No.1 directing them and their agents, officers, employees, partners, associates, servants, representatives, successors, attorneys and assigns etc. to forthwith remove defamatory and scurrilous articles, news items, video etc. posted, hosted, published by it on its Website (NewsBullet.in) and associated websites;

(c) Pass an order of temporary injunction directing defendant Nos.6 and 7 to block the defamatory Webpages written and/or published by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff from the Wtbsite - „NewsBullet.in‟ of defendant No.1 and/or other associated Websites within India and, to the extent possible, abroad;

(d) Pass ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers

(a), (b) and (c) above, and confirm the same after notice to defendants."

8. Plaintiff has given the details of some programs telecasted by the defendants in Star News Channel. Transcription is also filed on record in para 23 of the plaint. The plaintiff has also produced the details of Articles and news items which are available on the website. As per plaintiff, those are written and published in order to make unlawful earning through online by the said channel. It is argued by Mr Lekhi that the same is nothing but a hate speech which is instigating the public at large against the plaintiff without any cogent proof. The said Channel was/is making baseless, unfounded allegations in order to defame the plaintiff without any proof and without verifying the facts as it was holding a media trial thereby painting the plaintiff as a fraudster and cheat.

9. In support of his submission, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel, has referred to various decisions and English Law Books on

Torts and argued that till the time pleadings in the matter are complete, some interim protection is necessary, otherwise till the time, interim application is finally decided, the plaintiff would be totally ruined by the Star News Channel.

10. As mentioned earlier, defendants No.8 and 9 filed short affidavit of Sh. Ashok Venkatramani, Chief Executive Officer of defendant No.8. It is specifically mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit that impugned reports/programs telecasted on the Star News Channel contain true and verified information/facts confirmed by Star News correspondents/reporter through documentary sources and oral statement of concerned individuals and defendant No.8 will only represent true, correct and verified information about the plaintiff on the Star News Channel and continue to telecast after proper verification of information/facts without making unsubstantiated allegations.

11. Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of said defendants, has argued that they have full information, evidence, documents and source about the programs telecasted by the Channel. It was telecasted after verification. He also submits that before telecasting the said news, the plaintiff was given opportunity to give his clarification and comments but, he did not respond at all. He has handed over one set of documents in Court and asked for time to file the written statement and reply and documents so that full stand of defendant No.8 be placed on record.

12. In order to decide the matter on merit, it is true that the defendants‟ defence must be available on record. The defendants No.8 and 9 in the present case have only filed short affidavit in Court.

But, no doubt, it is also necessary to consider the prayer for interim protection as the defendant No.8 is telecasting news about the plaintiff almost every day many times as appeared from record, the delay if any without striking the balance at this stage and nature of matter may prejudice the case of either party. Therefore, some directions are necessary to be passed.

13. It is settled position in law that the fair comments must be based on facts and must not contain imputation corrupt motives on the person and it should be made on the basis of all the facts known to the party concerned. Similarly, the „defamatory‟ means that if a person deliberately makes a comment or publishes anything or by other means of any imputation against another person by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or by means thereof other third persons are likely to be induced to avoid him and damage result to the person concern whom they are made, he has right of action. A party cannot absolve himself in case he will intermingling of facts with possible expressions of opinion, unless the words which are so pleaded perceived meaning are true or fair comment.

14. The defendant No.8 in paras 3 to 6 of its affidavit has made the following statements:

"3) That the impugned reports/programs telecasted on the Star News Channel contain true and verified information/facts, confirmed by Star News Correspondents/Reporters through documentary sources and oral statements of concerned individuals.

4) That MCCS has disseminated the information/facts through the impugned reports/programs without making any direct accusation against the Plaintiff of its own.

5) That the impugned reports/programs also contain excerpts from the interviews/debates of prominent personalities carried out by Star News.

6) That as done previously, MCCS will only represent true, correct and verified information about the Plaintiff on the Star News Channel and continue to telecast the reports/interviews after proper verification of information/facts without making any unsubstantiated allegations."

15. As already mentioned that in the absence of defence available of the defendant, the prayer made in the interim application cannot be determined at this stage except that the limited direction can be issued in view of the statement made by the defendant no.8 in the affidavit to the effect that the defendant No.8 is entitled to telecast true, correct and verified information and news items including interviews in its channel and to upload articles about the plaintiff on its website. However, defendant No.8 is not allowed to instigate the public by using of an offensive and defamatory attack against the plaintiff at its own without any cogent and clear facts and documentary proof.

16. Written statement and reply be filed within three weeks with an advance copy to the plaintiff, who may file the replication and rejoinder three weeks thereafter. List on 09.07.2012.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

MAY 10, 2012