Harish Salve argues for Times Now SC gives no relief to Times Now in Indias costliest defamation suit

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

(5)

akhilesh

November 23, 2011 - 9:57pm

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.

(5)

adv chandrakant...

November 22, 2011 - 7:32am

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.

(5)

Dr. Gurdeep Singh

November 21, 2011 - 1:18pm

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.”

(5)

Adoksh Shastry

November 18, 2011 - 6:04pm

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.

(5)

RAMANA MURTY

November 18, 2011 - 8:33am

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.

FEATURES

Latest Tweets

Latest Tweets

CONNECT

Follow us on

-->