Defamation suits should be tried expeditiously as right to reputation is a facet of Article 21: Karnataka High Court

Suits pertaining to the offence of defamation should be tried as expeditiously as possible as the right to reputation is a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Karnataka High Court said. .A single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Dixit stated that cases pertaining to defamation cannot be allowed to be linger on indefinitely.."The suits founded on the tort of defamation need to be tried as expeditiously as possible; reputation, be it personal or occupational, for any person is sacrosanct; the apex court has ruled that, the right to reputation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court said..The Court was hearing a petition filed by Rajya Sabha Member and former Prime Minister of India, HD Devegowda, seeking to quash a civil court order disallowing him to adduce evidence at trial stage in a defamation suit initiated against him..The Court dismissed the petition observing that claim for redressal for the hurt of reputation merits speedier consideration before public memory fades with regard to the issue. ."Public memory being too short to be little, the claim for redressal for the hurt of reputation merits speedier consideration and ideally speaking, before the public memory fades. In defamation suits, award of damages in terms of money hardly constitutes a full recompense for the injury suffered; delayed justice makes it still worse; this is an added reason for the speedy trial of such suits; they cannot be allowed to be dragged on indefinitely," the Court said. .The former PM had challenged an order dated November 17, 2020, by which the civil court had rejected his applications filed belatedly requesting for reopening the suit, so that he could lead evidence. .The facts of the case go back to June 27, 2012, when M/S Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited (NICE) filed a suit against Deve gowda. The plaintiff claimed the damages for a sum of Rs. 10 Crore. Devegowda filed written statement of objections, resisting the suit, in September, 2012. .NICE's (respondent in the present plea) evidence was completed on 2019 and the matter was posted for defence evidence on February 26. However, Devegowda and his counsel remained absent and, therefore, his evidence was taken as nil. .When the suit was posted for arguments about a year thereafter, applications were moved once again, for reopening the suit stage. However, no affidavit was filed by Devegowda in support of his claims to reopen the suit. .The subordinate court refrained from allowing Devegowda to adduce his oral and documentary evidence. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court set aside the subordinate court order. .The court, after going through the memorandum of facts filed by Devegowda, and the order of the trial court, said,."The learned judge of the Court below having exercised his discretion in accordance with rules of reason & justice, has made the impugned order the kind of which does not merit a deeper examination at the hands of a Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested in it by Article 227.".The Court further urged the trial court judge to dispose of the subject suit within an outer limit of nine months. .[Read Judgment]