New Delhi: “Truth is considered to be the best vindication against slander… Yet, truth lacks the potency to restore the reputation that one loses in society which is always quick to judge,” the Delhi High Court said Friday as it awarded Rs 2 crore in reputational damages to Major General M.S. Ahluwalia in the 2001 expose by news magazine Tehelka.
In Tehelka’s 2001 sting operation, Operation West End, Major General Ahluwalia, who was then serving in the Army Headquarters, was alleged to be a corrupt officer.
Ahluwalia approached the Delhi High Court in 2002, contending that allegations of demanding a bribe and whiskey had sullied his image and reputation. Action was brought against Tehelka, its editor-in-chief and its reporters, but also against Zee Telefilms and its officers who telecast the report on its channels.
In a detailed order passed over two decades later, the court agreed with Ahluwalia with respect to his case against Tehelka and reporters, saying that portions of the transcripts which contained demands of bribery were not authentic, as they were never said by Ahluwalia.
In fact, the court said that such additions alleging corruption were a “figment of imagination/impression” of the Tehelka reporter. It agreed with Ahluwalia that the transcript was doctored to manipulate the recording with editorial comments not backed by facts, and hence no case of corruption could be made out.
Justice Neena Bansal of the high court thus directed news platform Tehelka, its then editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal, and reporters Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel to pay damages to the tune of Rs 2 crore owing to such “reckless reporting” causing defamation to Ahluwalia.
However, the court did not find a case against Zee and its related entities, as the case of the plaintiff was restricted to the actions of Tehelka. It said Zee cannot be held liable for defamation.
‘Operation West End’
‘Operation West End’ was carried out by reporters Bahal and Samuel who projected themselves as representatives of a fictitious London-based defence manufacturing firm.
Tehelka telecasted videos and ‘doctored transcripts’ which showed that the London firm (West End) was using middlemen in positions of power, exposing alleged defence corruption in the Indian Army.
One of such transcripts recorded in writing that a bribe of Rs 50,000 was paid to Ahluwalia.
Before the high court, Ahluwalia contended that the allegations were “false, motivated, mischievous”, only to lower the self esteem of the officer in the eyes of the public. He said the reports cast aspersions on his character and reputation, and that they were published deliberately without ascertaining facts. He also claimed that the reports were “doctored”.
Apology meaningless
Justice Bansal noted that the reports caused Ahluwalia harm and an apology was inadequate and meaningless in light of the facts as the plaintiff had lived with ill fame for more than two decades.
“The reputation of the plaintiff has suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal,” the court said.
In the order, Justice Bansal noted that Ahluwalia was a man of repute, holding the position of Major General in the Army and the transcript caused him immense disrepute, who “despite all the endeavours of the defendant”, did not accept the bribe.
“There cannot be worse defamation and disrepute to a person of integrity and honour than a false imputation of him having demanded and then accepted a bribe of Rs 50,000,” it noted.
The court further noted that editorial comments added by Bahal to the alleged tape were not authentic but a mere figment or imagination/impression of another reporter, Samuel, who had met Ahluwalia. Since the alleged corruption was based on the doctored transcript, there was no case of corruption against the major general, the court said.
It also observed that the law of defamation does not require an enquiry into actual harm or proof of damages, it is actionable “per-se” (as it is). This means that on proof of publication of defamatory statements, at least nominal damages must be awarded.
Figment of imagination
The court also considered whether the accused could avail any defence under defamation law, which would make them not liable for defamation.
It observed that truth of the published statements cannot be taken as a defence in the matter as the statements alleging corruption were a complete figment of imagination and were never stated by Ahluwalia, nor could such an impression be drawn.
Justice Bansal also rejected Tehelka’s argument that ‘Operation West End’ was undertaken with ‘public good’ to expose corruption in defence procurement around the world.
“The aim and objective may have been in public good, but it does not give any right to any agency to create or attribute false statements to the plaintiff merely to create sensationalization amongst the general public,” said the court.
It noted that the comments cannot be categorised as “fair comment” as they have been unable to establish any good faith on their part with regard to the reports.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)