Harish Salve argues for Times Now; SC gives no relief to Times Now in India’s costliest defamation suit

Bar & Bench News Network

Nov 15, 2011

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order directing Times Now to deposit Rs. 20 crore and a bank guarantee of Rs. 80 crore as a pre-condition to hear its appeal. The appeal has been filed against a Pune Civil Court order slapping a fine of Rs. 100 crore for defaming former Supreme Court Justice P. B. Sawant (pictured).

Apex court bench consisting of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya said “there is no error in the High Court's interim order. We find no reason to interfere with the order” as it was only an interim relief that had been granted by the High Court, reports The Hindu.

The issue arose when Justice Sawant’s photograph was telecast by mistake while reporting a provident fund scam in September 2008, allegedly involving Justice P.K Samanta, a Calcutta High Court judge. The photograph was aired for about 15 seconds in its 6:30 pm news bulletin. It was alleged that several judges were involved in the Provident Fund scam. However, Justice Sawant had nothing to do with the scandal.

Justice Sawant had filed a defamation suit and the Pune district court had ordered the company to pay him Rs. 100 crore as damages. The channel appealed against this verdict at the Bombay High Court. Senior Counsel I.M. Chagla appearing on behalf of Times Now on instructions from Kanga & Co. argued that the telecast of the Justice Sawant’s photograph, per se, has not caused damage to his reputation, integrity, standing or character and the photograph was telecast for 15 seconds without any repeat on the channel (Times Now). He also urged that it was a totally unintended inadvertence and at the earliest opportunity corrective steps, including writing a letter to Justice Sawant were taken. Senior Counsel Chagla prayed for unconditional stay to the decree under challenge. While Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy appearing for Justice Sawant argued that clarificatory telecast was done for the first time after 5 days from the receipt of the letter. Chinoy submitted that the channel’s behaviour was nothing short of a reckless attitude and, therefore, no case has been made out to exercise the discretion to reduce the amount of deposit or security in any manner.

The Bombay High Court allowed the application after hearing both the parties, subject to the condition that Times Global Broadcasting deposits Rs. 20 crore and furnishes a bank guarantee for Rs. 80 crore.

It was against this order of Bombay High Court, the channel had appealed to the Supreme Court. Senior Counsel Harish Salve appearing for Times Global, stated that there were serious questions arising out of the Bombay High Court order as to lack of evidence to prove that anyone was misled by the wrong photograph and whether that would amount to defamation coupled with the fact as to how the amount of Rs. 100 crore was quantified. But his plea was rejected by the Supreme Court and it directed the Bombay High Court to decide on the merits of the case without any prejudice to the Supreme Court judgment.

The Broadcast Editors' Association (BEA), the apex body of editors of national and regional television news channels of India, has decided to take up this matter in its next annual meeting to find alternative legal options since this judgment affects the entire fraternity of television journalists.

TOI reports, the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMS) has also expressed its ‘deep distress’ in the Supreme Court verdict as it seriously impacts the Freedom of Press. While agreeing that those defamed or libeled must be protected by law, it stated that it should not result in curbing the media by affecting its right to free speech. “If defamation is presumed even in mistakes honestly made without malicious intent the news media will be crippled with fear,” the FMS added.

The incident is sure to spark another tussle between the Media and the Judiciary. It remains to be seen whether displaying a wrong photo for 15 seconds will cost Times Now 100 crore!

Order of Bombay High Court

Comments(5)

1. "This is a perfect order of the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai as today we are seeing so many ugly and unruly items are telecast, at the whims and fancies of the Journalists and the Channels. There are several channels just ruining several lives of innocent people who were already facing injustice from the fellow citizens , their TV shows make these innocent people commit suicides. But these channels never try to do justice to the Public or nation, Freedom of Press doesnt mean that they have the freedom to ruin the lives of people and ruin the country as we are seeing totally biased programmes from TIMES NOW, if we go through the programmes of Mr Arnab Goswami, who behaves as if he is only Intelligent person in whole world and he feels that whatever he talks is final. The way he picturised the Anna Hazare's fasting is the best example. This is a fitting judgment for this kind of reckless behaviour of the press and media. In fact, till the date of judgement in the case, the total channel should be order to shut down for their reckless behaviourl. ". RAMANA MURTY, MUMBAI
2. "Several considerations were avoided in coming to this decision? Why 100 crores? Where has the effect of the alleged defamation been noticed? Where has it been settled that a non-malicious, unintentional action falls under the ambit of defamation?Freedom of Press naturally doesn't mean the allowance of defamatory material, but it also doesn't mean such heavy sanctions. The ECtHR is pretty settled on the punishment to lash out to defamatory actions and the principle of law is to dish out in proportion to the consquences of the action(MGN Case and Handyside Case). There has been no consequences of the said airing of the photograph and the amount is monsterous in proportion.As to the shutting down of the channel mentioned above by Ramana Murty, we need to understand the role of the press as a public watchdog. Any such restrains would only come back to haunt those who try to implement these. Prior Restrains are the worst form of abridgment of rights. ". Adoksh Shastry, Bangalore City
3. "For piquant situation like that of TIMES NOW and judiciary, the famous Roman stoic philosopher, moralist, and dramatist---Lucius Annaeus Seneca [c. A.D. 5-65], in his article “Media” had written : “He who decides a case with the other side unheard, Though he decides justly, is himself unjust.” (“Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera, Aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit.”). Going further, An English judge of 18th century, William Murray [1705-1793], in his article “Advise” (to judges) had stated “Give your decisions, never your reasons ; your decisions may be right, your reasons are sure to be wrong.”". Dr. Gurdeep Singh, (Unknown City?)
4. "the bombay highcourt order is the correct and the Honble supreme court has also rightly passed order.it must be the lesson to the t v channel.to spoil the reputation of the supreme court judge for tv channel news can note be tolerated for a daa.". Adv Chandrakant Thorat High Court At Aurangabad Mharashtra, (Unknown City?) Aurangabad
5. "Hon'ble S.C. & H.C. court make orders just like 'dictatorship' in view of defamation case of retd. justice. Retd. Justice Balakrishnan also involved in the case of 'corruption' but judiciary does not feel any amounts of defamation of Judiciary. What Abuse of Power of Hon'ble Judiciary. ". Akhilesh, Lucknow

Post Your Comment


	Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.