Delhi High Court
Naveen Jindal vs M/S Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Anr on 5 March, 2015
Author: Jayant Nath
$~A-19
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 2, 2015
Date of Decision: March 5, 2015
+ CS(OS) 143/2015
NAVEEN JINDAL ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Abhishek M. Manu Singhvi Sr.
Advocate and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,
Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Shanker
Mathur, Mr. Sanjeev Kapur, Mr.
Rajat Jariwal, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi,
Ms. Anisha Sonal, Mr. Vivek Mathur,
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Mr. Sagar Suri,
Mr. Anish Chawla and Ms. Mahima
Gupta, Advocates
versus
M/S ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LTD & ANR ..... Defendants
Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advocate
with Tejveer Singh and Mr. Kapil
Midha, Advocates for D-1.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with
with Tejveer Singh and Mr. Kapil
Midha, Advocates for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
IA No. 1070/2015 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC)
1. This is another unfortunate case where two known corporate
personalities are fighting each other tooth and nail oblivious of consuming
precious judicial time. The present application is filed seeking an interim
injunction to restrain the defendants, etc. from writing, telecasting or airing
any material, article, news etc. directly or indirectly pertaining to the
purported allegations made against the plaintiff pertaining to an alleged
incident of the year 2001 and 2010 by a lady who has been described in the
plaint as Mrs.ABC. Other connected reliefs are also sought.
2. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is said to be a two-
time Member of Parliament from the Kurukshetra Lok Sabha Constituency
in Haryana. He is also described as the Chairman of M/s.Jindal Steel &
Power Limited. His varied interests, including his educational
qualifications from the University of Texas, USA, his crusade regarding
the National Flag and having participated in international level shooting
events including the Asian Games have been described. Defendant No.1 is
described as a controller of several news channels on national television.
3. It is averred that there is a past history of certain controversial
conduct indulged in by the defendants and their promoters which has
resulted in a deluge of litigations being filed between the plaintiff and the
defendants and the person who controls the defendants. It is alleged that
sometimes in September 2012, an enormous demand by way of extortion
was made by the Editors of defendant No. 1 in conspiracy with the
chairman of defendant No.1. This extortion call, it is said, was made
pursuant to a vilification campaign against the plaintiff and his company in
relation to purported coverage of coal-gate scam in which the plaintiff‟s
company was sought to be falsely implicated. Money was sought with a
promise to „go slow‟ on the vilification campaign. The said act of
defendant No. 1 is said to have led to the following legal actions:-
a. FIR No. 240/2012 under Section 384, 511 & 120 B IPC lodged
by Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (JSPL) against defendant No.1 and
its office bearers. Some officers of defendant No. 1 were also
said to have been arrested.
b. On 26.11.2012 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. filed a suit before the
Bombay High Court seeking damages for Rs.200 crores. On
30.11.2012 the Bombay High Court was pleased to pass an
interim order directing that anything displayed by the defendants
on their channels regarding coal contracts to Navin Jindal Group
of Companies shall include the response/explanation given by
Navin Jindal Group of Companies.
c. The plaintiff and his company filed a suit before this High Court
being CS(OS)881/2014 for permanent and mandatory injunction
and damages on account of defamation against defendant No.1
and its office bearers. By order dated 01.04.2014 this Court was
pleased to direct that the views of the plaintiff and the connected
companies JSPL would also be aired so that their side of story is
reflected.
d. FIR No. 12/2013 was registered by Delhi Police against
defendant No.1 in connection with airing of forged documents.
The FIR was registered under Sections 466, 468, 469 & 471 read
with Section 120-B IPC.
e. A criminal complaint for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 500, 501 & 506 IPC read with Section 34/120-B
was filed by JSPL before the Ld.CMM, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi.
4. Similarly the defendants/their officers have also filed various
litigations, complaints, criminal prosecutions against the plaintiff and the
companies which are under control of the plaintiff and its officers. The
details of such cases are as follows:-
i. Editor and Business Head of Zee News Channel filed a
criminal complaint under Section 499, 500, 34 and 109 IPC
against the JSPL and its entire Board including the plaintiff.
The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the same on
18.03.2014.
ii. On 02.01.2013, the Editor and Business Head of Zee News
filed a criminal complaint for offences under Section 499,
500, 501, 34 & 109 IPC against the JSPL and its entire Board
including the plaintiff which is said to be pending.
iii. On 09.01.2013 the defendant has filed a complaint against the
entire Board of JSPL including the plaintiff for offences under
Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The said complaint was dismissed by
the Additional Sessions Judge on 16.01.2013.
iv. On 15.01.2013 the Editor and the Business Head of Zee News
Channel filed a criminal complaint against JSPL and its entire
Board including the plaintiff for offences under Section 66A
of the IT Act read with Sections 415, 417, etc. IPC along with
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of
an FIR. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed registration of
an FIR against unknown persons.
v. On 07.02.2013 a criminal writ petition being WP (Crl.) No.
25/2013 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to
quash FIR Nos. 240/2012 and 12/2013 along with another FIR
No. 7/2013. The said matter is said to be pending before the
Supreme Court.
vi. On 16.04.2013, the Cameraman of Zee News Channel filed a
criminal complaint against the plaintiff for offences under
Section 323 IPC read with Section 427/511 of IPC. The said
complaint was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on
28.06.2013.
5. The present controversy has arisen out of filing of writ petition No.
235/2014 before the Chattisgarh High Court by Mrs. ABC in which it is
averred that in 2001 one Mr. D.K. Bhargava along with others went to the
house of Mrs.ABC and asked her to sell her land. On her refusal, she was
threatened. Some days thereafter the same Mr. D.K. Bhargava along with
the plaintiff again went to her house, removed her clothes and robbed her
chastity. It is further averred that her thumb impression and signatures
were forcibly taken on some documents. She went to the police station to
record her complaint but nothing happened. Mrs.ABC has further alleged
that on 18.08.2010 she was forcibly dragged and brought before
Mr.D.K.Bhargava where again criminal acts were done against her.
6. It is averred by the plaintiff that the allegations made by Mrs.ABC
are absolutely false. There were disputes between JSPL and Mrs.ABC as
regards the compensation of land and various transactions took place
between JSPL and Mrs. ABC since 1999. A legal notice was also issued on
10.06.2008 by Mrs.ABC and thereafter she filed a civil suit. The Trial
Court passed a decree in favour of Mrs.ABC vide judgment dated
15.03.2013. An appeal is said to have been filed. It is stated that the
allegations are belated, totally false and motivated. It is urged that the
allegations have been made much after the alleged incident in 2001.
Several legal proceedings have taken place between Mrs.ABC, the plaintiff
and its associate companies but no such allegation was ever made earlier.
7. On 19.12.2014 when the said writ petition No.235 of 2014 was
listed before the Chhatisgarh High Court, the High Court passed an order
directing that reporting of the said matter with respect to the proceedings
of the court in print and electronic media are stayed till the next date of
hearing.
8. On 06.01.2015 the writ petition was disposed off holding that the
petitioner may visit the office of Superintendent of Police, Raigarh for
submission of her complaint. On such submission, the Superintendent of
Police, Raigarh shall forward the same to the concerned police station who
shall take steps in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,(2014)
2 SCC 1.
9. Relevant part of the order dated 06.01.2015 of the Chhatisgarh High
Court reads as follows:-
"4. Submission made by learned Advocate General appears to
be reasonable. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner may
visit the office of Superintendent of Police, Raigarh along with
her counsel for submission of complaint. On such submission,
the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh shall forward the same to
the concerned Police Station for proceeding ahead in the matter
in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Lalita Kumari (supra). It is also directed that the petitioner,
along with her counsel, shall visit the office of Superintendent
of Police, Bilaspur by 6.30 PM today and thereafter she will be
provided adequate security for her onwards journey to the
office of Superintendent of Police, Raigarh at State expenses. It
is expected of the Superintendent of Police to supervise and
monitor the issue so that the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) is fully adhered.
5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition
is finally disposed of. However, it is made clear that this court
has not passed any order nor has made any observations on the
merits of the issue."
10. It is further urged that the matter is pending enquiry to be carried out
in accordance with the law as was directed by Chattisgarh High Court in
the said order dated 06.01.2015. It is further averred that in a clearly
illegal, mischievous, malicious and vindictive manner defendants No. 1
and 2 are widely misusing the said order dated 06.01.2015 to conduct a
media trial against the plaintiff to tarnish his image. It is averred that such
acts of the defendants are causing irreparable harm and injury to the
plaintiff.
11. It is urged that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the publication/televising
of the subject matter, pending investigation, for the following reasons:-
(a) The said publications/news programs are totally manipulated,
misleading, false and have no iota of truth and are aimed at
defaming the plaintiff in the eyes of the public at large;
(b) It will emerge from the facts that publication of such news
articles and airing of such programmes clearly violates the
fundamental rights of the plaintiff guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, 1950 such as right to live with
dignity and privacy;
(c) It is submitted that airing of such programmes/printing of
such newspaper articles is an abuse of the Defendants‟
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression as it
oversteps the Plaintiff‟s fundamental rights and gravely
contravenes the norms and principles of journalistic conduct
laid down for the press and broadcasters;
(d) That the publication and televising of such news articles and
news programmes raises a real and imminent threat of
impeding fair enquiry of the matter. It is stated that there has
been no finding as regards the plaintiff.
(e) It is urged that the news programmes published and
broadcasted by defendants No. 1 and 2 are motivated with the
intent of sensationalizing the matter and conducting a media
trial. The acts are per se defamatory, false, frivolous and
misleading.
12. It is averred that the defendants have aired more than 20 false,
defamatory programmes against the plaintiff from 07.01.2015 to
15.01.2015 on the alleged incident of rape. It is pointed out as an
illustration that various programmes are being aired asking questions and
attempting to terrorize the police to push the police to take criminal action
against the plaintiff. Suggestions have been put to the ASP that in a case of
rape, an FIR should be registered first and enquiry should be conducted
later. It is further urged that an attempt is being made to harp on the fact
that the police is working under the pressure of the plaintiff. For example,
a question is posed by the Anchor of the Programme as to who is
responsible for the said delay i.e. SSP Raigarh, IG Police, DG
(Chhatisgarh), Home Secretary, Home Minister and Chief Minister.
Similarly, a reference is made to an interview of Additional Superintendent
of Police, Mr. Prafful Kumar where the questions posed are accusatory in
nature and blaming the police for not lodging an FIR against the plaintiff.
It is urged that the defendants are interfering with the administration of
justice and are trying to conduct a media trial which is causing deliberate
harm and the prejudice to the plaintiff. Suggestions are being made in the
course of the programmes to suggest that the entire administrative
machinery is acting in collusion with the plaintiff. It is further urged that
though the version of the plaintiff is purportedly aired, it is a highly edited
version and has been given inconsequential space and has no effect
whatsoever on the viewers.
13. The defendants have filed their response to the interim relief
application. It is pointed out that the plaintiff is making repeated attempts
for a blanket stay and has made one earlier attempt in CS(OS) 881/2014. It
is further urged that apart from the defendants there are various other
publications and channels which have covered the order dated 06.01.2015
of the Chhatisgarh High Court in a similar manner. It is stated that prior to
publication and broadcast the defendants had sought the comments of the
plaintiff in terms of an order of this High Court dated 01.04.2014 passed
by this court in CS (OS) 881/2014. It is averred that having followed the
said order no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff. In fact the
plaintiff has suppressed the said order dated 01.04.2014. In the response to
the allegations in the plaint about the duration of the programmes or the
frequency of the programme are not denied. What the defendant have
argued is that the telecast time is only roughly around five hours for the 10
days in question and the average time per day is only 8 minutes per
channel. The content and extract of interviews conducted by the reporters
of the channels has not been denied.
14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that
the present application should be allowed and appropriate injunction order
should be passed against the defendant.
It is averred that from 7.1.2015 to 15.1.2015 the defendants have
aired more than 20 news programmes on various national and regional
news channels. The programmes not only defame the plaintiff but also are
said to interfere with the administration of justice inasmuch as the reporter
of the defendant are trying to pressurise the police into lodging of an FIR
against the plaintiff.
It is pointed out that there is a long history of litigation which is
pending between the said Mrs.ABC and M/s.Jindal Steel & Power
Limited of which the plaintiff is a Chairman. The said Mrs.ABC has
filed a complaint to the police authorities earlier also on 26.07.2010
pursuant to which her statement was recorded on 28.08.2010. The
allegations are highly belated pertaining to an alleged incident of 2001.
It is averred that there is not even an iota of truth in the allegation being
made by Mrs.ABC.
It is further urged that the action of the defendants is motivated
by malafides. Their only intent is to sensationalise the matter by making
false, frivolous and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff and
conducting a media trial. Based on this motive, the defendants are
repeatedly publishing and airing false and defamatory
programmes/articles against the plaintiff.
Further, it is urged that the repeated coverage being done by the
defendants are contrary to the guidelines of News Broadcasting Standards
Authority (NBSA).
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian Express Ltd. & Ors., 207(2014) DLT
221.
15. Learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has made
various submissions to claim that the suit per se is not maintainable.
She submits that the plaint and the submissions of the plaintiff
appear to stress on the fact that version of the said lady Mrs.ABC is not
reliable. It is urged that in view of the nature of pleadings and averments of
the plaintiff, Mrs.ABC would be a necessary party to the present suit and
in the absence of the same the suit is liable to fail.
It is secondly submitted that the suit would not lie as earlier also the
plaintiffs have filed a similar suit and the reliefs claimed therein and in the
present suit are almost identical and the relief covered in that suit covers
the relief of the present suit. In that case which is titled Naveen Jindal &
Anr. vs. Zee Media Corporation & Ors., 209(2014) DLT 267
(CS(OS)881/2014) no interim orders were passed in favour of the plaintiff.
The only direction was that the defendants were directed to obtain the
views of the plaintiff therein in case they intend to televise any programme
pertaining to the plaintiffs No.1, 2 or his companies so that the views of the
plaintiff therein are reflected at the end of the said programme. It is urged
that the defendants have meticulously followed the above directions.
Hence, on account of the earlier suit the present suit is barred.
It is next urged that the plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of
material facts and in any case no relief of injunction would lie. It is
averred that the fact that the version of the plaintiff was taken by the
defendants and have been placed on the programmes when they were aired
is not brought on record. The plaintiffs have not mentioned regarding the
complaints made to Press Council, Election Commission. Hence, it is
urged that on account of the said suppression the present suit would not lie.
On merits, it is pointed out that a perusal of the order of
Chhattisgarh High Court would show that the High Court has noted that
Superintendent of police will supervise and monitor the issue so that the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and Others, (supra) is fully adhered to. It is stated that in
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) the
Supreme Court had directed that in cases where a preliminary enquiry is to
be held, the same should be made in a time bound manner not to exceed
seven days. It is urged that the police investigation is not adhering to the
directions of the Supreme Court in the said case of Lalita Kumari (supra).
It is urged that if the reporter asks the policeman as to why there is a delay,
the question would certainly be justified. It is further alleged that there was
no direction by Chhattisgarh High Court to hold a preliminary enquiry as is
being done by the police. Hence, it is urged that there is nothing wrong in
the reporting or the questions posed to the police officials.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Naveen Jindal & Anr. vs. Zee Media Corporation & Ors.,(supra).The
learned senior counsel for defendant No.1 has also filed a paperbook
containing judgments of various Courts which had declined grant of
interim injunction regarding prior publication.
16. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 has
submitted that discussion is a part of freedom of speech which may not
be absolute but restrictions that are imposed on the same have to be an
aid to the rule of law. Any restriction placed by this court would have
the effect of curbing the freedom of speech which would be incorrect. It
is further urged that at best the reports made by the defendant are a case
of fair comment and justification. It is further urged that this is a
complete defence to a suit for defamation and no stay can be granted. It
is also urged that the plaintiff is a public figure having been a Member
of Parliament. Public is interested in the activities of a figure like the
plaintiff and there can be no restrictions imposed on a right to comment
upon the conduct of the plaintiff.
17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff have rebutted the
contentions of the defendant in Rejoinder.
It is urged that merely because a plea of justification i.e. fair
comment and justification are raised that would not be a ground to decline
injunction. To prove the case of justification and truth, the matter would
have to go to trial. At this stage, in case the plaintiff makes out a prima
facie case, this Court would grant injunction and would not refuse
injunction merely because a plea of justification has been raised.
Further, reliance is placed on Article 21 of the Constitution to
claim that the rights of the plaintiff are being trampled upon and it would
be the duty of this Court to protect the plaintiff.
It is next urged that the reporting being done by the defendant is
abnormal reporting. It is motivated on account of the history of the conduct
of the defendant whereby defendants have been indulging in extortion. In 7
days it is urged that 20 programmes lasting 22 hours have been telecasted
on various channels of defendant showing an abnormal and extra zeal. It is
urged that this is not a case of a bona fide channel reporting facts and
events or commenting on the same but a clear case of malicious reporting.
It is also gross abuse of the process of law as the plaintiffs are
hectoring and pressurizing the police to take action against the plaintiff and
also harassing the police with a view to take action against the plaintiff.
It is denied that the plaintiff is a public figure and inasmuch as he is
an ex M.P. and not a public figure.
18. Learned senior counsel for the defendants have sought to respond to
the rejoinder arguments of the plaintiff. It is stressed that the programmes
aired by the defendants or the articles written do not cause any interference
in the course of justice. Merely asking inconvenient or uncomfortable
questions to the police or about the plaintiff would not amount to
interference in the cause of justice. It is further urged that there is no
hectoring going on and the journalists of the defendants are only probing
and trying to get to the veracity of the true facts.
19. The first question that arises in this case is whether this Court would
have the powers to grant a pre-publication or pre-broadcasting injunction
against the defendants. The above issue is no longer res integra. A
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India
and Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 603 (MANU/SC/0735/2012) concluded that in
most jurisdictions there is power in the Court to postpone reporting of
judicial proceedings in the interest of administration of justice. That was a
case in which Civil Appeals were pending filed by the petitioner
challenging the orders passed by the Security Appellate Tribunal. Certain
communications were exchanged between the counsel for the parties
pursuant to a direction by the Court that the learned counsel should attempt
to reach a consensus with respect to acceptable security in the form of an
unencumbered asset. The communications exchanged between the
counsels appear to have come on one of the TV Channels. In this
background, the petitioner has stated that the Court should give appropriate
directions with regard to reporting of matters which are sub-judice. The
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"29. At this stage, we wish to clarify that the reliance on the
above judgments is only to show that "prior restraint" per se has
not been rejected as constitutionally impermissible. At this
stage, we may point out that in the present IAs we are dealing
with the concept of "prior restraint" per se and not with cases of
misuse of powers of pre- censorship which were corrected by
the Courts [see Binod Rao v. Minocher Rustom Masani reported
in 78 Bom LR 125 and C. Vaidya v. D'Penha decided by Gujarat
High Court in Sp. CA 141 of 1976 on 22.03.1976 (unreported)]
30. The question of prior restraint arose before this Court in
1988, in the case of Reliance Petrochemicals
Limited v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay
(P) Limited MANU/SC/0412/1988: AIR 1989 SC 190 in the
context of publication in one of the national dailies of certain
articles which contained adverse comments on the proposed
issue of debentures by a public limited company. The validity of
the debenture was sub judice in this Court. Initially, the court
granted injunction against the press restraining publication of
articles on the legality of the debenture issue. The test
formulated was that any preventive injunction against the press
must be "based on reasonable grounds for keeping the
administration of justice unimpaired" and that, there must be
reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is real
and imminent. The Court went by the doctrine propounded by
Holmes J of "clear and present danger". This Court treated the
said doctrine as the basis of balance of convenience test. Later
on, the injunction was lifted after subscription to debentures had
closed.
31....
32. Thus, the principle of open justice is not absolute. There can
be exceptions in the interest of administration of justice. In
Mirajkar, the High Court ordered that the deposition of the
defence witness should not be reported in the newspapers. This
order of the High Court was challenged in this Court under
Article 32. This Court held that apart from Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court had the inherent
power to restrain the press from reporting where administration
of justice so demanded. This Court held vide para 30 that
evidence of the witness need not receive excessive publicity as
fear of such publicity may prevent the witness from speaking the
truth. That, such orders prohibiting publication for a temporary
period during the course of trial are permissible under
the inherent powers of the court whenever the court is satisfied
that interest of justice so requires. As to whether such a
temporary prohibition of publication of court proceedings in the
media under the inherent powers of the court can be said to
offend Article 19(1)(a) rights [which includes freedom of the
press to make such publication], this Court held that an order of
a court passed to protect the interest of justice and the
administration of justice could not be treated as violative of
Article 19(1)(a) [see para 12]. The judgment of this Court in
Mirajkar is delivered by a Bench of 9- Judges and is binding on
this Court."
20. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
and Anr.AIR 1967 SC 1 the Supreme Court was dealing with a issue
where an order was passed by the High Court not to publish reports
regarding the evidence of one of the witnesses. This was a curb on the
principle of public trial in open Court. A nine Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court held that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in
camera. The Supreme Court held as follows:-
"21. Having thus enunciated the universally accepted
proposition in favour of open trials, it is necessary to consider
whether this rule admits of any exceptions or not. ........That is
why we feel no hesitation in holding that the High Court has
inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in camera if the ends of
justice clearly and necessarily require the adoption of such a
course. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that this inherent
power must be exercised with great caution and it is only if the
court is satisfied beyond the doubt that the ends of justice
themselves would be defeated if a case is tried in open court
that it can pass an order to hold the trial in camera; but to deny
the existence of such inherent power to the court would be to
ignore the primary object of adjudication itself. The principle
underlying the insistence on hearing causes in open court is to
protect and assist fair, impartial and objective administration of
justice; but if the requirement of justice itself sometimes
dictates the necessity of trying the case in camera, it cannot be
said that the said requirement should be sacrificed because of
the principle that every trial must be held in open court...."
21. Similarly, reference may also be had to the judgment of Supreme
Court in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd.vs. Proprietors of Indian Express
Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 190. In that case
the petitioner had made a public issue of Secured Convertible Debentures.
A petition was filed in the Karnataka High Court and in the Delhi High
Court challenging the consent of the Controller of Capital Issues. In the
Transfer Petition, the Supreme Court granted an injunction order directing
that the issue would be proceeded with „without let or hindrance'. Certain
adverse reports were published commenting adversely on the debentures.
The petitioners had objected to the reports claiming that the effect was to
comment on a matter which was subjudice and to undermine the effect of
interim order passed by this Court. Trial by newspaper on an issue which
is sub-judice was argued to be grossest mode of interference with the due
administration of justice. The Supreme Court issued an order of injunction
restraining the respondents from publishing any article, comment, report or
any editorial questioning the legality or validity of any of the consents,
approvals or permissions for issue of the Secured Full Convertible
Debentures. Hence, the Supreme Court ordered restraint on publication.
Needless to add that after the time for subscription to the debentures had
closed and the imminent danger to the subscription subsided, the Supreme
Court held that continuance of the injunction is no longer necessary. The
Supreme Court applied the test of real and imminent danger in order to
infer as to whether the proposed publication would lead to an interference
in the course of justice for the purpose of grant or non-grant of interim
injunction of prior restraint against publication.
22. Hence, courts have power to pass pre publication or pre-
broadcasting injunction where the court is satisfied that interest of justice
so require.
23. The next issue would be as to under what facts and circumstances,
the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to grant an injunction regarding
publication of news items or broadcasting of programmes. The
Constitution Bench in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and
Ors. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr. (supra) held as
follows:-
42. .... But, what happens when courts are required to balance
important public interests placed side by side. For example, in
cases where presumption of open justice has to be balanced with
presumption of innocence, which as stated above, is now
recognized as a human right. These presumptions existed at the
time when the Constitution was framed [existing law under
Article 19(2)] and they continue till date not only as part of rule
of law under Article 14 but also as an Article 21 right. The
constitutional protection in Article 21 which protects the rights
of the person for a fair trial is, in law, a valid restriction
operating on the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), by
virtue of force of it being a constitutional provision. Given that
the postponement orders curtail the freedom of expression of
third parties, such orders have to be passed only in cases in
which there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness
of the trial or to the proper administration of justice which in the
words of Justice Cardozo is "the end and purpose of all laws".
However, such orders of postponement should be ordered for a
limited duration and without disturbing the content of the
publication. They should be passed only when necessary to
prevent real and substantial risk to the fairness of the trial (court
proceedings), if reasonable alternative methods or measures
such as change of venue or postponement of trial will not
prevent the said risk and when the salutary effects of such
orders outweigh the deleterious effects to the free expression of
those affected by the prior restraint. The order of postponement
will only be appropriate in cases where the balancing test
otherwise favours non-publication for a limited period. It is not
possible for this Court to enumerate categories of publications
amounting to contempt. It would require the courts in each case
to see the content and the context of the offending publication.
There cannot be any straightjacket formula enumerating such
categories. In our view, keeping the above parameters, if the
High Court/ Supreme Court (being Courts of Record) pass
postponement orders under their inherent jurisdictions, such
orders would fall within "reasonable restrictions" under
Article 19(2) and which would be in conformity with societal
interests, as held in the case of Cricket Association of Bengal
(supra)...
43. In the light of the law enunciated hereinabove, anyone, be he
an accused or an aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends
on the basis of the content of the publication and its effect, an
infringement of his/ her rights under Article 21 to a fair trial and
all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach an
appropriate writ court and seek an order of postponement of the
offending publication/ broadcast or postponement of reporting of
certain phases of the trial (including identity of the victim or the
witness or the complainant), and that the court may grant such
preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to a fair trial and
Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the abovementioned
principles of necessity and proportionality and keeping in mind
that such orders of postponement should be for short duration
and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial
risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the
fairness of trial. Such neutralizing device (balancing test) would
not be an unreasonable restriction and on the contrary would fall
within the proper constitutional framework."
24. This High Court had also the occasion to deal with the entire gamut
of judgments on this issue in the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. The Indian
Express Ltd. & Ors.(supra) in CS(OS) 102/2014 passed on 16.01.2014.
This Court held that it had power to restrain publication in media if it
arrives at a finding that the publication may result in interference with the
administration of justice or against the principle of fair trial or open justice.
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
"46. From the mere reading of the excerpts from the judgment
of Sahara India (supra), it can be said that the High Court has
ample powers under its inherent powers to restraint the
publication in media in the event it arrives at the finding that
the said publication may result in interference with the
administration of justice or would be against the principle of
fair trial or open justice. Although the aforenoted observations
seem to suggest that the Court can restrain the publication of
the news relating to Court proceedings or postpone the same in
order obtain the fair trial. The later part of the judgement in
Sahara India (supra) suggest that the order of the prior restraint
is a preventive order and the said order may proceed to restrain
any publication which may cause obstruction of the justice
which include intrusion in right to have open justice unbiased
by any public opinion expressed in publication. Thus, the
interference with the course of justice as a term is not merely
confined to the restraint order only on the publications relating
to pending Court proceedings. But also, any publication which
would give excessive adverse publicity to the accused or
alleged victim which may likely to hamper the fair trial in
future is also covered within the ambit and sweep of the enquiry
of the Court as to what may constitute the interference with the
course of the justice....
................
49. Upon fair reading of the aforenoted paragraph of the
Sahara India (supra), it is clear that it is the question of degree
of prejudice and its nexus with fetching the fair justice or open
justice which is a potent factor which is required to be
examined and tested by the Courts at the time of passing of the
injunction restraining or postponing the publication. The line
between fairness and unfairness is sometimes blurred but if the
same is likely to prejudice the accused and project him as
culprit which may cause irreversible damage to a person, the
Court can step in and assume jurisdiction for future prevention
of such damage so that the administration of the justice is not
impaired."
25. The present matter is at the stage of preliminary enquiry by the police.
The question is whether it will be appropriate for the Court to grant stay on
publication at this preliminary stage. Do the powers of the court encompass
within its sweep, the power to pass an injunction or prior restraint before or
after an FIR is registered and before the court commences trial.
26. For the legal position in this regard, reference may be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352. That was a case in which the accused
was tried for the offence of murder. In that case, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been specifically
targeted and maligned before and during the proceedings by the media,
despite his acquittal by the Trial Court. The Apex Court while discussing the
role of the media and press opined that there is a danger of serious risk of
prejudice if the media exercises an unrestricted and unregulated freedom.
The Court further stated that certain articles and news appearing in the
newspaper immediately after the date of occurrence did cause confusion in
the mind of the public. In this regard, the relevant paras are as follows:
"148. Despite the significance of the print and electronic media
in the present day, it is not only desirable but least that is
expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to
ensure that trial by media does not hamper fair investigation by
the investigating agency and more importantly does not
prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner
whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of justice if either of this
causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair
investigation and trial.
....
151. Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal
presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold
through the process of media trial and that too when the
investigation is pending. In that event, it will be opposed to the
very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection
granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution
[Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 6
SCC 354]. It is essential for the maintenance of dignity of
Courts and is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a
free democratic country, that the criticism or even the reporting
particularly, in sub-judice matters must be subjected to check
and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of
justice.
152. In the present case, various articles in the print media had
appeared even during the pendency of the matter before the
High Court which again gave rise to unnecessary controversies
and apparently, had an effect of interfering with the
administration of criminal justice. We would certainly caution
all modes of media to extend their cooperation to ensure fair
investigation, trial, defence of accused and non interference in
the administration of justice in matters sub-judice.
153. Summary of our Conclusion:
...
11. Every effort should be made by the print and
electronic media to ensure that the distinction between
trial by media and informative media should always be
maintained. Trial by media should be avoided
particularly, at a stage when the suspect is entitled to
the constitutional protections. Invasion of his rights is
bound to be held as impermissible."
27. Reference may next be had to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB & Ors. vs. State through CBI,
2004 (72) DRJ 693. In that case the public servants were charged for
entering into criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of India and
cause wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.64 crores for the award of contract for
supply of guns. The Court observed that after thirteen long years of
investigation by the CBI no evidence has been collected against the public
servants. The Court while observing the result of trail by media held as
follows:
"7. This case is a nefarious example which manifestly
demonstrates how the trial and justice by media can cause
irreparable, irreversible and incalculable harm to the reputation
of a person and shunning of his family, relatives and friends by
the society. He is ostracised, humiliated and convicted without
trial. All this puts at grave risk due administration of justice.
8. It is common knowledge that such trials and investigative
journalism and publicity of pre-mature, half baked or even
presumptive facets of investigation either by the media itself or
at the instance of Investigating Agency has almost become a
daily occurrence whether by electronic media, radio or press.
They chase some wrong doer, publish material about him little
realizing the peril it may cause as it involves substantial risk to
the fairness of the trial. Unfortunately we are getting used to it.
....
13. This is one of such cases where public servants who are no
more have met somewhat similar fate being victim of trial by
media. They have already been condemned and convicted in the
eyes of public. Recent instance of such a trial is of Daler
Mehandi whose discharge is being sought few days after his
humiliation and pseudo trial through media as they have not
been able to find the evidence sufficient even for filing the
chargesheet. Does such trials amount to public service is a
question to be introspected by the media itself."
28. Similarly, reference may also be had to the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Deepti Anil Devasthali and Leena Anil
Devastnali vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (111) BomLR 3981. In that case
the accused were sentenced to death for abduction and murder. The appeal
was filed against the conviction by the accused persons. The main attack of
defence was the dishonest, shoddy and incomplete investigation by the
police. The prosecution proved that the victim was made unconscious, killed
and his body parts were dismembered. The police during investigation for
the recovery of body parts arranged for a camera to shoot the recovery
process. The Special Prosecutor conceded that such disclosure by the Police
in respect of their leads while collecting evidence affected the quality of
investigation. The Court while stating that due to media interference the
authenticity of the investigation is questionable held as follows:
"120. ...When the investigation is in embryo stage, the police
should eschew themselves from any publicity. It is high time
for the police officer to understand their responsibility not to
approach the media to get cheap and objectionable publicity
which makes the criminal justice system not transparent but
patchy and hazy. Right to information is wrongly interpreted by
the police as right to inform. High degree of secrecy is a must
when the investigation is in process. The publication of the
matter in the print/electronic media and highhanded telecast and
immature comments of the anchors of the TV media may
mislead the people as public opinion is bound to be influenced
by the manner the case is projected and ultimately affect the
sanctity and fairness of the criminal trial. The overzealous
efforts made by the prosecution to telecast the investigation i.e.
discovery panchanama dilutes the investigation and lends
support to the argument of the defence that the police from the
beginning were not fair in the investigation."
29. Reference may be had to be judgment in the case of M.S. Ravi & Ors.
MANU/KE/1298/2009. The High Court of Kerala in that case was dealing
with a publication of an article relating to a case of murder of a Nun. The
issue concerned was whether the article amounted to contempt of court. On
the issue of media interfering with the due course of justice, the Court held
as follows:
"16. We notice that there is a growing tendency among the
media to make comments on the merits of the cause pending
before the courts, while reporting on pending proceedings. Talk
shows are held even on the merits of interim orders passed by
the courts. Conflicting views, even on interim orders, are
broadcast and the anchor, in some cases, finally pronounce the
verdict also. Such trial by media is sure to prejudice either the
prosecution/Plaintiff/Petitioner or the accused/Defendant/
Respondent. Such programmes of the media have the effect of
interfering with the administration of justice and therefore, will
amount to criminal contempt. The theory of our system of
justice is that "the conclusions to be reached in a case will be
induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not
by outside influence, whether of private talk or public print".
Such programmes make a mockery of this theory against
outside influence. "The right to sue and defend in courts is the
alternative of force in an organised society. It is the right
conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation of
orderly Government". But, the said cardinal right is being
infringed by such talk shows. To keep the viewers remain glued
to their programme in the evening, the channels broadcast such
talk shows. But, in that process, unknowingly, the system of
administration of justice of our State is being weakened and
distorted. Interference even with police investigation will
amount to interference with the due course of justice.
Influencing the investigating officer will also amount to
contempt of court....."
30. The power of the High Court to order restrain of publication in the
media would clearly encompass the stage when the criminal case against
the accused is at the preliminary enquiry or investigation stage also. In the
light of the said position, I will now see whether facts and circumstances
exists which necessitate the passing of a pre-publication or pre-
broadcasting injunction against the defendants.
31. At this point let me have a look at some of the judgments relied
upon by the defendant.
32. I may refer to two of the judgments filed by the defendant No.1
alongwith its paper book. First case is a judgment of the Division Bench of
this High Court in the case of Khushwant Singh and Anr. vs. Maneka
Gandhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 58. In that case the High Court was dealing with
a petition where a public figure claimed protection against publication
under her right of privacy. The Division Bench noted that publication of
the excerpts of the proposed publication had occurred much prior to the
filing of the suit. In those facts the Division Bench held that private life of
public figure does become matter of public interest. It was in those facts
that the Division Bench held that there was no question of any irreparable
loss and injury since the respondent had herself claimed damages which
would be a remedy in case she is able to establish defamation.
Next case is Tata Sons Limited vs. Greenpeace International &
Anr., 178(2011) DLT 705. That was a case in which the plaintiff was said
to be developing an eco-friendly port. However, the defendants were
raising concerns about probable dangers to the nesting and breeding of
Olive Ridley Turtles by the proposed port in various quarters. It was
averred by the plaintiff that the contentions of the defendant are false,
frivolous and misleading on facts. It is further urged that the defendants
had gone a step further and had made an online game titled „Turtle vs.
TATA‟. It was urged that the impugned game and the defendant‟s use of
TATA mark amounts to defamation with an ulterior motive of damaging
its reputation. It was in those facts that this High Court held as follows:-
"28. The English common law precedent on awarding interim
injunctions in cases of defamation is set out by the case of
Bonnard (supra). In Bonnard it was decided that an interim
injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of
justification by the Defendant was certain to fail at trial level.
The Court's observations, widely applied in subsequent
judgments are as follows:
...[The subject-matter of an action for defamation is
so special as to require exceptional caution in
exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction
before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated
wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for
the public interest that individuals should possess,
and, indeed, that they should exercise without
impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and,
unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong
committed; but, on the contrary, often a very
wholesome act is performed in the publication and
repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an
alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at
all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving
free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of
libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the
granting of interim injunctions.... In the particular
case before us, indeed, the libelous character of the
publication is beyond dispute, but the effect of it
upon the Defendant can be finally disposed of only
by a jury, and we cannot feel sure that the defence of
justification is one which, on the facts which may be
before them, the jury may find to be wholly
unfounded; nor can we tell what may be the damages
recoverable.
Again, in Fraser v. Evans [1969] 1 QB 349 Lord Denning MR
stated the law as follows:
The court will not restrain the publication of an
article, even though it is defamatory, when the
Defendant says he intends to justify it or to make
fair comment on a matter of public interest. That has
been established for many years ever since Bonnard
v. Perryman. The reason sometimes given is that the
defences of justification and fair comment are for
the jury, which is the constitutional tribunal, and not
for a judge. But a better reason is the importance in
the public interest that the truth should out.... There
is no wrong done if it is true, or if [the alleged libel]
is fair comment on a matter of public interest. The
court will not prejudice the issue by granting an
injunction in advance of publication...."
The Court concluded that the issue which the defendant‟s game
seeks to address is one of public concern. The Court held that granting
an injunction would freeze the entire public debate on the effect of the
port project on the Olive Ridley Turtle‟s Habitat. On those grounds, the
interim injunction was declined.
The facts of these two cases are entirely different from what is
being said and alleged by the plaintiff in the present case. Here the issue
is as to whether the acts done by the defendant are subservient and
obstructing the course of justice.
33. The learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has also
strongly relied upon the judgement of this High Court in the case of
Naveen Jindal vs. Zee Media Corporation Ltd. and Anr. (supra) which
judgment was given on 01.04.2014. As per the facts given, the case dealt
with a situation where the plaintiff appears to have been contesting the
elections for the third time from the Kurukshetra Lok Sabha Constituency
in Haryana. It was averred by the plaintiff in that case that the allegations
which were subject matter of that suit were aired by the defendants in the
news programmes from 01.03.2014 and 24.03.2014 were per se
defamatory and were repeated 131 times against the plaintiff which not
only effected the sentiments of a particular community and caste but also
done with a view to damage the prospect of the plaintiff in getting elected
to the Parliament in the ensuing elections. The allegations that were
levelled against the plaintiff have been reproduced hereinafter when
dealing with the preliminary submissions of the defendant.
34. It was averred by the plaintiff therein that the allegations made by
the reporters of defendant No.1 against plaintiff No.1 were per se
defamatory and that the defendants therein had unleashed a campaign of
vilification.
35. This court, however, concluded that prima facie there may be
incorrect statements or inaccurate statements which were made by the
defendants which may not be to the liking of the plaintiff or which may
be causing annoyance to the plaintiff therein but were not per se
defamatory. Having arrived at that conclusion the Court held that to
restrain the defendants from pre-telecasting of programmes or news
articles or reporting the same would not only be gagging the Right to
Freedom of Press but also gagging of the public to know about a
candidate who is sought to be elected by its electorate. Hence, this Court
in that case granted limited relief to the plaintiff whereby the defendants
were directed to obtain the view of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 therein in case
they intend to televise any programme pertaining to plaintiff No. 1 or its
companies and to ensure that the interviews/comments are simultaneously
reflected at the end of said programme. In my view the conclusions arrived
at by the Court are based on those facts. That judgment does not have any
application to the facts of the present case.
36. I will also here to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the
defendant. It has been urged that the said earlier suit was filed by the
plaintiff being CS(OS) 881/2014 titled Naveen Jindal & Anr. vs. Zee
Media Corporation & Ors. (supra). The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in
the present suit, it is urged, are covered by the reliefs claimed in the earlier
suit. The facts of that case as already elaborated were that the plaintiff was
contesting the Lok Sabha Elections from the Kurukshetra Lok Sabha
Constituency in Haryana. It was averred that allegations are being aired by
the defendants in their news programme which were per se defamatory and
were repeated 131 times against the plaintiff. A perusal of the allegations
made would show that there were several allegations most of which related
to the conduct and behavior of the plaintiff as a Member of Parliament etc.
The allegations which were subject matter of the said suit read as follows:-
"6. In order to deal with these allegations which were leveled against
plaintiff No. 1, it may be pertinent here to refer to the allegations
which have been reproduced by the plaintiff, which are as under:-
• Congress candidate Naveen Jindal during his campaign for
3rd inning had to face brunt of the people. The Member of
Parliament could not give any answer when some people
confronted him with the frauds going on since 10 years and his
inability to fulfil the promises made at the time of election.
• When people asked him as to why he has not fulfilled the
promises made by him and people expressed their anger in this
regard, then netaji became angry and started blaming the
people. His security guards also misbehaved with the
people. Jindal went to the extent of saying Ok don't vote for
me.
• You will be shocked to see Naveen Jindal caught in an
imbroglio with the people of Kurukshetra which is his own
constituency. But this is true.
• The people of Kumhar community were voting for him on
this very condition.
• But see the high headedness of the Member of Parliament
that he even went to the extent of saying them that they should
not vote for him. If you do not believe, then listen to this. In
the meanwhile, the security guards of Jindal not only
misbehaved with the public but they also pushed aside all those
who came to complaint.
• The entire Kumhar community is extremely unhappy and
rather angry on hearing such words from the mouth of their
own Member of Parliament and the treatment given to them by
the security guards of Jindal. They are at a complete loss to
understand as to what was their fault, whether it is a crime to
ask question from their own Member of Parliament who is a
liar.
• Naveen Jindal could not tolerate this behaviour of theirs and
you can see the manner in which he has misbehaved with the
members of prajapat community.
• Thereafter when he tried to raise his point in the workers
meeting then he misbehaved and ignored and the body guards
pushed him aside. Such kind of attitude has left a totally
negative impact on the prajapati community.
• Several of our correspondents have joined us. We will gather
information from them and will discuss on this issue.
• Generally, whenever a leader goes to public, he listens to the
grievance of the people and he should talk with the people in a
very polite manner. But it is not so in this case. The security
guards of Jindal highly misbehaved with the local people. You
can feel the impact of such an incident.
• History is a witness that whenever a minor spark has risen
from any area of Haryana the same has always turned into a
massive demonstration. Whether it is the demonstration of JP
or of Jat community or of transport employees or of farmers.
Such agitations always emerge in the form of small sparks and
turn into a monstrous demonstration. The witness to this is the
incident of yesterday. The members of Prajapat community are
not confined only in the areas of Kurukshetra or Gulachika
alone but it is spread throughout Haryana in vast numbers. In
Sonepat also, there are large members of this community.
Voters of prajapat community play a significant role in
Haryana and in this case Naveen Jindal has succeeded in
reaching Lok Sabha twice due to these Kumhars. But his
conduct towards them shows nothing but his high-headedness
and the downfall of a person always starts from such conducts.
He has started his own doom. Now it depends upon the
members of the Kumhar community to make its future plans
for the coming Lok Sabha Elections.
• All this will definitely leave a negative impact.
• You have seen the incident which has happened with a
particular community. If we see the whole incident, we clearly
find the high-headedness of Naveen Jindal.
• He is undoubtedly a very high-headed person and it actually
shows somewhere or the other. You can see his attitude
towards employees of his own company with whom they are
talking.
• The every effect of this defeat in the coming elections is now
clearly visible on the face of Naveen Jindal and in his
speeches.
• Even otherwise, the attitude of Naveen Jindal is like this.
Whenever we ask any question from him, he shows his high
headedness. Earlier also, he had done exactly the same with
our camera during a discussion with him. He had jerked the
camera when our reporter tried to ask a question from him. His
conduct is visible in the public also. He will have to pay for his
attitude.
• Public also knows how to reply the anger. Public has only
one power with them which is their vote and you have seen
this for yourself in the recent elections of Delhi Assembly.
Now when the elections are very near, then public will
definitely give its reply which will cause sleepless nights to
several leaders. Public will give its fitting reply to Jindal Sahib
by means of voting.
• Frustration is self evident. He has won twice from this
constituency and now he is here for the third time. Such a
conduct on his part with the public just before the elections can
cause a huge loss to the Congress party in the entire Haryana.
We are receiving inputs that this prajapat community is spread
in entire Haryana and it is a very strong community and that
several other communities are also attached with this
community.
• But is he absolutely unafraid of the results. High command
has given him a free hand to deal with the public in the manner
he wants.
• Someone will definitely question his attitude. Public will not
tolerate such kind of conduct. Public will give its
representative through voting and the results of Lok Sabha
elections will definitely show the negative impact in the
Kurukshetra. You have just seen the conduct of one kind. The
candidate will have to bear the brunt for his conduct at every
cost.
• It is natural that he will have to bear the brunt for his attitude.
What do you think?
• You must know how to talk with the public when you go to
them before the elections. Public will definitely ask question
from you when you fail to fulfil all those promises of
developments which you had made at the time of last elections.
Specially your volunteer who is widely advertising for you and
whatever he is saying before the people, will be the same
position with all the workers and such a situation will become
the biggest problem.
• His mines in Bhilwara has been cancelled or is likely to be
cancelled while as he has no mines."
37. In those facts and circumstances, this Court declined to give a
blanket pre-telecast restraint order. Directions were passed that the
defendants therein would obtain views of the plaintiffs in case they intend
to televise any program pertaining to plaintiff No.1 or his companies so
that the said interview, comment or their side of the story is simultaneously
reflected at the end of the said programme.
38. This suit is based on alleged defamatory publication/broad casts
pertaining to a specific complaint filed by Mrs.ABC before the
Chhattisgarh High Court. There are serious allegations of outraging the
modesty of the lady and rape etc. As per the orders of the Chhattisgarh
High Court the police is to take steps on the complaint which is filed by the
said Mrs.ABC in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.(supra). The earlier suit being CS(OS) 881/2014 had nothing to do
with the said publications on the allegations of Mrs.ABC. This is obvious
from a reading of the allegations which are the subject matter of the earlier
suit. The cause of action for the present suit is entirely different. There is
no merit in the submission of the defendant that the present suit does not
lie in view of CS(OS)881/2014 filed earlier by the plaintiffs.
39. I will now deal with the two other preliminary submissions of
defendant No.1. One of the submissions is that the lady who has made the
allegations, namely, Mrs.ABC is a necessary or proper party. A perusal of
the plaint shows that there is no relief sought against Mrs. ABC. The issue is
as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is
entitled to an injunction against the defendant. Relief that will be granted by
this court or declined by this court is not going to affect Mrs.ABC. The said
Mrs.ABC is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit.
The next contention raised by defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiff is
guilty of suppression of material facts. In the course of arguments, the
defendants have not been able to point out any material fact which would in
any way have a bearing on this case which has been suppressed by the
plaintiff. For the purpose of this application, there are no merits in the said
submission also.
40. Coming to the facts of this case. The background of the Complaint
which is lodged by Mrs.ABC is to be noted. There are certain disputes
pending between the JSPL and Mrs.ABC regarding various transactions that
took place regarding sale of land since 1999. Mrs. ABC filed a Civil Suit
no.4A/2009 for possession of her land and claimed damages against JSPL in
2009. The Suit was decreed vide Order dated 15.03.2013. JSPL being
aggrieved by the same filed an appeal which has been remanded back vide
Order dated 02.01.2015. Further Mrs.ABC wrote a letter to the plaintiff
dated 20.08.2008 seeking compensation for the land purchased by JSPL. On
26.07.2010 Mrs. ABC wrote a letter to the Superintendent of the Police,
Chattisgarh complaining that JSPL has made unauthorized construction on
the land belonging to her and also requested suitable compensation. On
18.08.2010, FIR no. 142/2010 under section 147, 148, 149, 294, 506 and
323 IPC was registered at PS Raigarh by Mrs. ABC. FIR No.143/2010 was
also lodged by JSPL against Mrs. ABC on the same date.
The allegations made before the Chhattisgarh High Court are that in
2001 Mrs.ABC was threatened by one Mr.D.K.Bhargava. Thereafter the
said Mr.Bhargava and the plaintiff went to her house and robbed her chastity
and forcibly took her thumb impression on some documents. It is further
stated that on 18.8.2010 while she was standing on the road she was dragged
inside the factory of JSPL where unnatural rape was committed on her. This
is the nature of allegations on which an enquiry is being conducted by the
Chhattisgarh Police. Steps are being taken pursuant to directions dated
6.1.2015 of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
41. Plaintiff has strenuously denied the above allegations against the
plaintiff pointing out that the allegations are belated and stale, being made
12 to 14 years after the alleged incident. Further in the various proceedings
earlier, no such allegation was made by Ms. ABC.
42. Another relevant fact is the running feud between the two parties.
There are allegations made by the plaintiff that in 2012 an attempt to extort
Rs.100 crores was made by Editors of defendant No.1 in conspiracy with the
Chairman of defendant No.1 for "going slow" on the vilification campaign
against the plaintiff and his company regarding reportage. It is the
contention of the plaintiff that the demands of defendant No.1 were recorded
by the officers of the plaintiff in a sting operation carried out at a hotel in
New Delhi. Pursuant to this action, FIRs have been lodged. The details of
various proceedings which have been filed against each other have been
already narrated above.
43. The plaintiffs aver that defendants have aired more than 20
defamatory and false programs against the plaintiff w.e.f. 7.1.2015 to
15.1.2015. It is averred that there have been attempts to deliberately
misinterpret the orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Reference is made
to a program aired on 13.1.2015 for a duration of 1 hour and 50 minutes
where the anchor is stated to be impressing on the viewers that the police is
not following the instructions of the High Court or directions of the
Supreme Court. It is averred that the anchor was trying to point out as to
whether the delay is on account of SSP (Raigarh), IG Police, DIG Police
(Chhattisgarh), Home Secretary, Home Minister and Chief Minister.
Leading questions are said to be put to the police pointing out that in an
allegation of rape, an FIR is to be lodged first and the question of enquiry
would not arise. Reference is also made to an interview with Additional
Superintendent of Police, Mr.Prafful Kumar which are accusatory in nature
and blames the police for not lodging an FIR despite order passed by the
Chhattisgarh High Court. It is averred that defendants are interfering with
the administration of justice and are trying to conduct a media trial and to
cause deliberate harm and prejudice to the plaintiff.
44. It is urged that the publication and televising of such articles and
news programmes is raising a real and imminent threat to pending fair
enquiry in the matter by the police.
45. Hence, essentially the plaintiff seeks to press for an ad interim
injunction based on two contentions. Firstly, that the defendants are
motivated on account of the past litigation between the parties where they
were caught trying to extort large amount of money from the plaintiff.
Hence, the defendants are actuated by malice and ill will towards the
plaintiff. The second contention is the conduct of the defendant is such as
to interfere with the administration of justice and hamper a fair enquiry.
The said conduct is an intrusion to the right to open justice unbiased by
any public opinion expressed in publications. It is urged that the
programmes not only defame the plaintiff but also tend to interfere with the
administration of justice and that the entire attempt of the defendant/its
reporters is to pressurize, browbeat or hectoring/pressurize the police into
lodging an FIR against the plaintiff.
46. I may at this stage take a closer look at the nature of programmes
being telecast as reproduced by the plaintiff and not specifically denied by
the defendant. Reference may be had to some of the questions and
observations being made in the TV Programme which read as under:-
"And regarding this we directly asked the Chief Minister of
Chhattisgarh, Dr.Raman Singh, when the High Court has
passed the order then why is the government not doing
anything.
Dr.Raman Singh- If the High Court has directed then there
won‟t be any problem.
Anchor-Rohit Sardana-
Chief Minister Raman Singh doesn‟t find it necessary to say
more than one line on this issue. He said that High Court has
ordered so investigation will be done. But even after the order
of the High Court, complaint has not been lodged, when we
asked this question, no one had the answer to this. Before
showing this report we tried to get the view point of Naveen
Jindal on this issue. After this statement, we thought of showing
you this report."
Anchor-Rohit Sardana-Welcome Mr.Praful Kumar. In this
case the order of High Court has come but the complaint has
still not been launched. Can you tell us why?
ASP Praful Kumar- Till now we have received one
application and we have given it for investigation to the related
police station Tamnaar. After the investigation whatever facts
are found, action will be taken accordingly.
Anchor-Sir, first investigation is done and then FIR is filed or
first FIR is filed and then investigation is done.
ASP Praful Kumar- As you have mentioned the issue of the
High Court, that‟s why I am telling. We will enquire and not
investigate. And after enquiry if we find, then we will go for
FIR.
Reporter Shailesh Ranjan- Why is there so much delay in this
case. It has already been a week since the court has given its
order. Does the police usually investigates the rape cases in this
way or this matter is different?
ASP Praful Kumar- The matter is of 2003. It is 2015. There is
so much delay. If it had been 2003, then it wouldn‟t have been
the delay. Complaint has come in 2015 that is why all this
needs to be done.
ANCHOR- Sir, that lady claims that she has been trying
to lodge the complaint since 2003 but till now it hasn‟t been
done."
......
ANCHOR- We were talking to ASP Praful Kumar Thakur. He
says that the court has not asked him to investigate, it has asked
him to enquire. Although, it has already been a week since the
court has passed its order, but the enquiry is still going on. And
just think, if the police is saying that one who has complained is
not found at her home so they are not able to proceed further.
From this we can understand the intention of the police and the
seriousness with which it wants to enquire.
.....
Reporter-Devesh- The police officers are repeatedly telling a
bundle of lies because on the first day itself after the order on
Wednesday when the lady reached the SP office. SP met her
himself and kept her there from morning till evening. The first
mistake that the police did was that they did not have a lady
police present there. And even then they heard the complete
story of the lady and then again the police tried to get the
statement of the victim. SP left by saying that you give it in
writing and then the police official did not meet the lady. And
now on the phone line, the ASP said that they are regularly
sending the police to the house of the victim and the statement
is not being recorded. The lady is clearly telling in her
statement that the goons of the company are regularly visiting
her home, her family members are being threatened, her
daughter is threatened to be raped, how can such a lady stay at
home. As per the order of the High Court, she has been
provided four security guards by the Bilaspur SP and those
guards are provided by the Raigarh District police itself. The
lady has been kept at a separate place to protect her from the
goons. We were there for the interview and police guards were
also there with the lady. Even then if the ASP says that they
don‟t have information about where the lady is, clearly explains
that somewhere the police is evading and is not trying to
register a case."
................
Reporter-Shailesh-No Rohit. It is very much clear that
somewhere the police is going slow in this case and it would be
interesting to see when the police takes the next action even
after the High Court gave its order one week ago. In supremacy,
High Court come next to the Supreme Court, and the order of
the High Court clearly says that further action should be taken
in this case. We should see that.
ANCHOR- Devesh...hasn‟t anyone asked the Women
Commission as to why they are not coming forward in this
case.
Reporter-Devesh-The women Commission has constantly
maintained silence on this issue. Apart from Women
Commission, senior officials of the police has kept silence in
this matter. Although the Chief Minister of Chattisgarh
certainly said in one line that they will look into this matter.
Chhattisgarh police is enquiring this matter and this matter is
under consideration and once the case is understood,
investigation will be done. If the police desires, statements and
enquiry, what the High Court has said, can be done in two days.
But the attitude of police is such that it doesn‟t want the
investigation to happen and this matter proceeds further. Even
the lady is questioning as to what is that benefit due to which
police is not willing to do its duty. The lady also said in her
interview that constant pressure is being created by the
company and the police. What is the reason that even after the
order of the High Court, police is not investigating the matter.
ANCHOR- Allegation of rape was made on Aasaram, he had
to go to jail, Nityanand was alleged for rape, legal action was
also taken against him. Rape allegation was also made on the
journalist Tarun Tejpal in November 2013, legal action was
taken. In June 2009 Shiney Ahuja was also charged for rape by
his maid, police took action in that case also. Initially, Shiney
Ahuja also said that the allegations are false and he is being
framed. Afterall what is the constraint of the Chhatisgarh police
that they are scared of taking action.
ANCHOR- This news is brought to you by Zee News and we
will keep raising question on this issue even further and keep
asking the Chhattisgarh government, when they will take action
in this case?"
47. The nature of the programme, the questions and observations show
they are likely to prejudice the police and hamper the course of
investigation/ inquiry which is being conducted by the police. I am
persuaded to come to this conclusion on seeing the nature of questions
being put by the Anchor in various TV programmes. As an example, I may
refer to the questions of the Anchor in asking the ASP as to who is
responsible for the presumed delay i.e. SSP Rai Garh, IG Police, DG
Chattisgarh, Home Secretary, Home Minister or the Chief Minister.
Another example is an observation by the reporter that the Women
Commission and the police have maintained silence. Another example is
the observation what the High Court has said can be done in two days if
the police so desire. The programmes are replete with such
questions/observations.
48. The nature of questioning done by the reporters of defendants, the
extent of coverage being done by the defendants does show that an attempt
is being prima facie made to prod the police if not pressurize. The plaintiff
have made out a prima facie case.
49. In these facts would the plaintiff be entitled to an injunction to
restrain the defendants from publishing reports or airing reports pertaining
to the allegations which are pending before the police by Mrs. ABC. Legal
position as explained above is quite clear. Any publication which gives
excessive adverse publicity to an accused or which is likely to hamper fair
trial and constitutes an interference with the course of justice could be a
ground for grant of injunction. The court has ample inherent power to
restrain publication in media in the event it arrives at a finding that the said
publication may result in interference with the administration of justice or
would be against the principle of fair trial or open justice.
50. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Serious
prejudice will be caused to plaintiff in case injunction is not granted.
Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2, their associates are restrained by an
order of injunction from publishing any article or right-ups or telecasting
programmes on the allegations against the plaintiff as made by Mrs. ABC
either in the complaint or before the police, till the time the police
completes its enquiry and, if necessary, investigation and files an
appropriate report/document before the court. The injunction passed is of a
temporary nature and is applicable only till the police completes its
preliminary enquiry or any other investigation if required that may be done
at a later stage. However, the defendants are free to report about the court
cases or about the final conclusion of the police in the course of
preliminary enquiry covered under the ambit of fair reporting on the basis
of true, correct and verified information. The application stands disposed
of.
CS(OS) 143/2015
List before the Joint Registrar on 16.04.2015 for further proceedings.
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
March 05, 2015
rb/n
