IN THE HONOURABLE

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

CIVIL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2000

IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Geeta Pandey …………………………… APPELLANT
V.
Editor Daily Mail & Mr. Harmeet Singh ………… RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SUBMITTED BY- VIPIN MALVIYA

ROLL NO. – B-03
CLASS – B.B.A. LL.B. (5TH YEAR)
DIVISION - B

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

List of Abbreviations ………… 3

Index of Authorities …………. 4

Statement of Jurisdiction …………..6

Statement of Facts …………...7

Statement of Issues …………10

Statement of Arguments ………….11

Arguments Advanced ….………13

Prayer .………...25

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& and

AIR All India Reporter

E.g. Example

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

KLR Kerala

Gau Gauhati

No. Number

Ors. Others

HC High Court

Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Bom. Bombay

Vs. versus

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Table of Cases
Supreme Court of India v.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Reynolds v Times Newspapers
Deepak Kumar Biswas V.
National Insurance Co. Ltd
Hunt v. Star Newspaper Co
Dakhyl v. Libouchere
The Editor Rashtra Deepika Ltd.
V. Vinaya N.A
Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd.
v. Thakorlal P. Thakor,
Mitha Rustomji Urzban V.
Nusserwanji Nowraji Engineer
McQuire V. Western Morning
News Co.
Chanel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd. V.
Manock
Sutherland V. Stopes
Adam V. Ward
Loutchansky V. Times Newspaper
Ltd.
Rookes V. Barnard
Indian Express Newspaper
(Bomaby) Private Ltd. V. Union of
India
Ramesh Thappar V. State of
Madras
Rustom K. Karanjia And Anr. vs
Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459,
[2001] 2 AC 127, at 205 A-C
AIR 2006 Gau HC 110
[1908] 2 K.B. 309.
[1908] 2 K.B. 325
2017 SCC Online Ker 8162:
(2017) 3 KLT (SN 80) 58: (2017)
3 KLJ 533
AIR 1936 Bom 114
AIR 1941 (28) Bom 278
(1903) 2 KB 100
(2007) 82 AJLR 303
(1925) AC 47
(1917) AC 309
(2001) 4 All ER 115
(1964) UKHL 1
(1985) 1 SCC 641
1950 SCC 436
AIR 1970 Bom 424, (1970) 72
BOMLR 94, ILR 1971 Bom 324
 Webb v. Times Publishing Co. (1960)(2) QB 535
Ltd.

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

BOOKS REFERRED
 LAW OF TORTS, BY R.K. BANGIA
 LAW OF TORTS BY RATANLAL DHEERAJLAL
 LAW OF TORTS, RANCHHODAS
 ON TORTS, WINFIELD AND JOLOWIEZ

E-SOURCES
 MANUPATRAFAST.COM
 CASEMINE.COM
 LEGALSERVICESINDIA.COM
 LAWTEACHER.NET
 MONDAQ.COM
 INDIANKANOON.COM
 JSTOR.COM

LEGAL DATABASES
 MANUPATRAFAST.COM
 SCCONLINE.COM

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant has approached this Hon’ble Appellate Court
under Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where it is
stated as:
Appeal from original decree
(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal
shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising
original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from
the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with
the consent of parties.
(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a
decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small
Cause, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees].

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ms. Sabina works at “FORBES General Hospital” and is a clinical social
worker. Her work mainly involves attending cases in the emergency
department of the hospital. The hospital is in the high-class area of Pune
city, Maharashtra and is well equipped. It has all specialty and
comprehensive supportive services like Laboratory, Diagnostic and
Imaging, Ambulance Service, and Intensive Care Unit etc.
On 26th May 2000 at about 10 a.m. a 15-year-old boy was rushed to the
hospital by his neighbors following an apparent suicide attempt. He was
immediately admitted to the emergency department. The boy had
consumed a large quantity of antidepressant medication and
benzodiazepine.
The neighbors immediately contacted his mother, a single parent
working in a reputable multinational company. His mother, The
Appellant, Smt. Geeta Pandey immediately reached the hospital at about
10.30 a.m. along with her two colleagues and a few relatives. In front of
the emergency ward, she met Sabina who tried to help her cope with the
crisis. The Appellant insisted that she be allowed to be with her son
during his emergency treatment. She had to be restrained by hospital
staff when she tried to enter the room where her son was being treated.
During the episode, the mother appeared to be anxious, worried and was
losing temper very often. Everyone, including her neighbors and
colleagues tried to calm her down and wait for the test reports and
further course of treatment. In her fit of anger, she was continuously
blaming the boy’s father with whom she was engaged in a bitter custody
battle. According to the Appellant, the boy’s father was responsible for
his emotional distress. The mother was also critical of the boy’s school
counselor who, the mother said, should have shared more information
with her about her son’s condition. Perhaps this would have helped her

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

to take steps to reduce his son’s distress. Unfortunately, the boy did not
survive and died in few hours.
On 30th May 2000 while reading the newspaper called “Daily Mail”,
the Respondents The Appellant came across an article on “Need and
Importance of Child Counseling in cases of single Parenting” She
realized that the Article was written by a Clinical social worker Harmeet
Singh, the other Respondent. He had quoted several examples, holding
the real names and identities of the persons. However, one of the
examples quoted was very close to her son’s case. It disclosed the date
of admission to the hospital, age and narrated how difficult it is for the
single parent and the child to cope up with the stress when there is a
court case pending relating to the child’s custody. With the example the
name of the “FORBES General Hospital” was mentioned. She realized
that the age and date of the admission of the child was same as that of
hers. On enquiry she found that Mr. Harmeet Singh is attached to several
hospitals including “FORBES General Hospital” and obviously had
access to the hospital records. She also came to know that he was a
distant relative of her ex-husband but had never met him or heard about
him during her sustained marriage. But Mr. Harmeet Singh never knew
about the relation of his friend and the appellant. Her colleagues, friends,
relatives gave her condolence call but at the same time were indirectly
mentioning her about the newspaper article. They also advised her to
keep control over her temperament and should go for yoga and
meditation because she is not known for this kind of behavior, and they
were rather taken by surprise.
The Appellant had to resume her office immediately on 1st June as she
had a lot of assignments to complete and meet the deadlines. Her
immediate superior called her into his office and asked if things were
fine with her. He said that he is worried about her distress and was
apprehensive if she could complete her assignment in time. He also
narrated the newspaper article written by Mr. Harmeet and the example
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
which suggested it to be her case. He also further suggested her to go for
counseling. Mrs. Pandey assured him that what was written in the
newspaper was not true, to which her superior agreed and added that in
past he had no complaints about her work, and she is known as a
meticulous and hardworking employee. However, her promotion and
salary increment which was due is time being delayed further for six
months and her performance will be evaluated to be entitled for the
promotion and increase in salary and other benefits.
During lunchtime many of her colleagues discussed the same issue,
which she found painful, mentally, and emotionally exhausting. The
Appellant found everything unbearable, humiliating and thought that at
the time of medical crisis of their children many parents react in the
similar manner and bound to lose control over what they say and do.
She filed a civil suit against the newspaper and the author of the article,
Mr. Harmeet Singh, for defamation of her character and claimed
damages of Rs. 20 Lakhs In conjunction with her grievances; she
requested a copy of the hospital’s medical record.
When the Appellant received and reviewed the hospital chart, she was
stunned to read the following words in Sabina’s clinical note: “Mother
shows visible symptoms of pre-morbid separation issues and
egocentric/hysterical tendencies. History of troubled marriage and
conflicting relationships, she clearly has constant unresolved issues and
often uses offensive words.” The same words were used in the example
of the newspaper article.
The lower Court passed the judgment against the Appellant on the
grounds that the names of the persons were not disclosed, and it was
merely a co-incident that people related the example to her. Further the
court observed that the words used in the clinical history sheet were not
defamatory but mere observations noted in clinical terms. She filed an
appeal in Bombay High Court, Mumbai.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 Whether the example quoted in the article relates to the appellant

in any manner when it withholds the identity of the individuals?

 Whether the words used in the clinical notes of Sabina which were
published in the newspapers were defamatory or simply
observations noted in clinical terms?

 Is the newspaper and Mr. Harmeet Singh liable for paying damages
to Smt. Geeta Pandey for defamation of her character in public
relations?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

 ISSUE 1: Whether the example quoted in the article relates to the

appellant in any manner when it withholds the identity of the
individuals?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the example

quoted in the article does not relate to the appellant in any manner.
The first and foremost reason would be that the Respondents have
neither named anyone nor there is a reflection of the Appellant in
the article written by the Respondents. The newspaper article was
just about the need for child counselling and its importance in case
of single parenting and the example so quoted was not in relation
with the Appellant, but it is just a mere co-incidence of fact that it
related with the life of the Appellant, as it was held by the lower
court.

 ISSUE 2: Whether the words used in the clinical notes of Sabina

which were published in the newspapers were defamatory or
simply observations noted in clinical terms?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the words
used in the clinical notes of the hospital chart of Sabina which
were published in the newspaper were not defamatory at all as they
were just observations made by Sabina as she is a professional
social clinical worker having years of experience and she wrote in
those clinical notes whatever she observed the behavior of the
Appellant. So, the words used were nothing but complete truth
about the Appellant and they were simply an observation made by
Sabina.
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
 ISSUE 3: Is the newspaper and Mr. Harmeet Singh liable for
paying damages to Smt. Geeta Pandey for defamation of her
character in public relations?

The counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble Court that Mr.

Harmeet Singh, the Respondent is not liable to any kind of
damages to Smt. Geeta Pandey for defamation of her character in
public relation as the matter alleged published no way related to
her but the clinical note was published was true in complete sense
as it was an observation made by an experienced person and it was
published in public interest, so it is a fair comment also. Therefore,
there are no grounds for the Respondent being liable to pay
damages to the Appellant.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether the example quoted in the article relates to
the appellant in any manner when it withholds the identity of the
individuals?
It is humbly submitted by the counsel to the Hon’ble Court, explained
argument regarding this issue. The example quoted in the article by the
respondents does not in anyway relates to the appellants in any manner
because it does not disclose the identity of the appellant in anyway
possible or give any reflection of the appellant through which the right
thinking or right-minded people of the society to draw reference that it is
talking about the appellant.
In case of Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal1, held
that (i) public interest, sometimes criticized as inherently amorphous and
incapable of a precise definition, is a time tested and historical conflict
of rights test which is often applied in the right to information legislation
to balance right to access and protection of the conflicting right to deny
access.
(ii) comparison or balancing exercise of competing public interests and
privacy rights has to be undertaken; and,
(iii) the right of the public to information on the assets of the Judges of
the Supreme Court was held to not impinge upon the right to privacy of
the Judges.
So, in the present case, by not disclosing the identity of the appellant or
by withholding the identity of the appellant, the Respondents have tried
their best to balance the private interest of the appellant as well as the
public interest to be published in the newspaper about the Single

1
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459,
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Parenting, which the respondents have published in the interest of
public.
Anything submitted to the public for its appraisal is of public interest.
Books, articles in periodical and newspapers, plays, radio broadcast are
examples. The work of an architect, the performance of actors in public
entertainments are also within the defence of Fair Comment.2
Any other circumstances which may fairly be said to invite comment is
also within its scope.3
Hence, the publication of article about “Need and Importance of Child
Counselling” in the Respondent’s Newspaper “DAILY MAIL” comes
within the scope of public interest, which is necessary for the defense of
Fair Comment, and it is a proper defense under Defamation as a Tort.
In the landmark case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers4, the court of law
said:
“In general, a newspaper’s unwillingness to disclose the identity of its
sources should not weigh against it. Further, it should always be
remembered that journalists act without the benefit of the clear light of
hindsight. Matters which are obvious in retrospect may have been far
from clear in the heat of the moment. Above all, the court should have
particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. The press
discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The
court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public
interest and, therefore, the public had no right to know, especially when
the information is in the field of political discussion. Any lingering
doubts should be resolved in favour of publication.”
So, in the present case, the Respondents, the publishers in this case shall
be protected and they should not be weigh against them as the
respondents have taken due care and caution while writing the article.
2
Law of Torts, Dr. JN Pandey
3
Law of Torts, Dr. JN Pandey
4
[2001] 2 AC 127, at 205 A-C
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
It was also said the Court of Law in this case5, that:
“The common law has long recognized the 'chilling' effect of this
rigorous, reputation protective principle. There must be exceptions. At
times people must be able to speak and write freely, uninhibited by the
prospect of being sued for damages should they be mistaken or
misinformed. In the wider public interest, protection of reputation must
then give way to a higher priority.”
So as in the present case the reputation of the Appellant should be on the
lower footing, and it should give way to the higher priority called as the
public interest.
The counsel submits that the Respondents have national level circulation
and that they have a good reputation in the field of journalism and in the
eye of right-thinking people of the society and they are very well known
about the laws and regulations of the publication and their limits. So, the
respondents have taken every measure before publishing any kind of
material and before publishing this particular article, the respondent
considered that it is their moral duty to let people know about the “Need
and Importance of Child Counselling in case of Single Parenting” in the
public interest.
In the case of Deepak Kumar Biswas V. National Insurance Co. Ltd.6,
where a delay was caused on the part of the Insurance Company in
presenting an appeal against the award. In the condonation petition,
another counsel appointed by the Insurance Company stated that delay
had occurred “on account of laches on the part of lawyer who was
conducting arbitration case before arbitrator”. The said words were held
not necessarily made to cause onslaught on personal integrity or
reputation of the appellant. The Gauhati HC held that the Insurance

5
Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127, at 205 A-C
6
AIR 2006 Gau HC 110
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Company had no motive or ill will to defame the Appellant. The
statement so made was held not defamatory.
So, in the present case, also the respondents had no motive or ill will to
defame the appellant and has not cause onslaught in personal integrity or
reputation of the appellant. The delay in promotion of the appellant is
because of the delay in completing the assignment and it is being said by
her boss that her promotion will be completely based on evaluation of
her performance. There is no fault on the side of the respondents
regarding her promotion and has not caused an onslaught on the personal
integrity of the Appellant.
Hence, in this case, the e.g. so quoted in the newspaper does not relates
to the appellant as the respondents have willingly choose to not to
disclose the identity of the appellant and there is complete in form of
Fair Comment, and it requires the interest of public involve in it. So, the
respondents are immune from any kind of liability against them. As
discussed above that the interest of the public should be kept at a higher
footing than that of private interest.
If the statement is in the form of an innuendo, the defendant had to prove
the truth of the statement arising out of the meaning of the words used in
the innuendo. Where a number of allegations are made the defendant is
free to prove the truth of some of the statement. If he can prove that the
alleged complaints made by him, can be separated from the rest, he can
be absolved from liability.7

ISSUE 2: Whether the words used in the clinical notes of Sabina which
were published in the newspapers were defamatory or simply
7
Law of Torts, J.N. Pandey
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
observations noted in clinical terms?
The counsel humbly submits the argument to the Hon’ble Court for
consideration as follows. The words used in the clinical notes of Sabina
that were published in the newspaper were just simply an observation
made by her and her being a clinical social worker and that she was
mainly attending in the emergency department for years now, it will be
considered as an observation of an experienced person.
All the words used by Sabina were nothing but the complete truth. Truth
is a complete defense to defamation. Statement of Facts don’t
substantially have to be true. They are to be comprehended as a whole.
The essence of the statement should be justified. If a defendant can
prove that the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains
are substantially true, then the defense of justification is made out8.
Similarly, comments made herein can be justified as they weren’t made
on the basis of made-up facts. They came from a place of apprehension.
In Hunt v. Star Newspaper Co.9, Fletcher Moulton, L.J., said:
“In the first place, comment in order to be justifiable as fair comment
must appear as comment and must not be to mixed up with the facts that
the reader cannot distinguish between what is report and what is
comment… The justice of this rule is obvious. If the facts are stated
separately and the comment appears as an inference drawn from those
facts, any injustice that it might do will be to some extent negatived by
the reader seeing the grounds upon which the unfavourable inference is
based. But if fact and comment be intermingled so that it is not
reasonably clear what portion purports to be inference, be will naturally
suppose that the injurious statements are based on adequate grounds
known to the writer, though not necessarily set out by him.”
In Dakhyl v. Libouchere10, Lord Atkinson said:
8
Law of Torts, R.K. Bangia
9
[1908] 2 K.B. 309.
10
[1908] 2 K.B. 325(n)
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
“Personal attack may form part of a fair comment upon given facts truly
stated if it be warranted by those facts, in other words in my view if it be
a reasonable inference from those facts. Whether the personal attack in
any given case can reasonably be inferred from the truly stated facts
upon which it purports to be a comment is a matter of law for the
determination of the Judge…. but if he should rule that this inference is
capable of being reasonably drawn it is for the jury to determine whether
in that particular case it ought to be drawn.”
In the case of The Editor Rashtra Deepika Ltd. V. Vinaya N.A.11, it was
held by the Kerala HC that:
“Once it is proved that it was made with some ill motive to malign the
particular person without naming that person but with the knowledge
that it is likely to affect the reputation of that person in the society, then
the person who made the publication will not be entitled to get the
protection of any of the defences available under law in action in tort for
defamation namely fair comment, qualified or absolute privilege, good
faith and justification by truth and they are liable to pay compensation to
the person whose reputation was affected on account of the defamatory
publication effected.”
So, in the present case, there is no ill motive of the respondent against
the appellant. The clinical report so published in the said article was
nothing but just a fair comment by an experienced person and it was
published in public interest and as a Clinical social worker, she just
thinks about how she can make people aware about mental illness and
other related matters.
A Fair and a Bona Fide comment made concerning public interest is no
libel.12 The statement made is not defamatory in nature if it is an opinion
or a comment. It must be an expression of opinion rather than assertion

11
2017 SCC Online Ker 8162: (2017) 3 KLT (SN 80) 58: (2017) 3 KLJ 533
12
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts 292 (26 th ed. 2015)
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
of facts. The individual must believe in the statement made and should
be vehemently of that opinion.
So, in the present case, Sabina had observed the behavior of the
appellant when the appellant lost her temper and could not keep her
calm and she frequently appeared to be anxious and worried and kept
blaming her ex-husband with whom she was battling for the custody of
the child, for the condition of her child in the hospital.
In the case of Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd. v. Thakorlal P.
Thakor,13the court held that holding that defence of fair comment is
available only when the underlying fact on which the comment is made
is true and qualified privilege available to journalists is subject to the test
that the defamatory imputation must be the product of fair and
reasonable journalism.
In the case of Mitha Rustomji Urzban V. Nusserwanji Nowroji Engineer
14
it was held that a publication in a newspaper commenting upon an
individual must be fairly made.
In the case of McQuire V. Western Morning News Co.15 it was held that:
“The word ‘fair’ embraces the meaning of honesty and also of relevancy.
The view expressed must be honest and must be such as can fairly be
called criticism. The word “fair” refers to the language employed, and
not to the mind of the writer.”

In the case of Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd. V. Manock16, it was held
that:
“It must be indicated with reasonable clarity by the words themselves
taking them in the context and the circumstances in which they were
13
AIR 1936 Bom 114
14
AIR 1941 (28) Bom 278
15
(1903) 2 KB 100
16
(2007) 82 ALJR 303
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
published that they purport to be comment and not statement of fact.”
In case of Sutherland v. Stopes17, it was held that:
“The plea in an action for libel that in so far as the words complained of
consist of allegations of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and
in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion they are fair comments
made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest is
known as the “rolled up plea.” It is not a plea partly of justification and
partly of fair comment, but is a plea of fair comment only.”
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
A statement is said to have a qualified privilege when no action lies for it
even though it is false and defamatory, unless the plaintiff proves
express malice. In certain matters the speaker is protected if there is
absence of malice.
These are-
(1) communications made
(a) in the course of legal, social, or moral duty,
(b) for self-protection,
(c) for protection of common interest,
(d) for public good;
(2) reports of Parliamentary and judicial proceedings, and proceedings at
public meetings.

In case of Adam V. Ward18, the court held that:

17
(1925) AC 47
18
(1917) AC 309
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
“Where the defendant sets up the plea that the publication had a
qualified privilege, the plaintiff must prove the existence of express
malice, which may be inferred either from the excessive language of the
defamatory matter itself or from any facts which show that the defendant
was actuated by spite or some indirect motive.”

In case of Loutchansky V. Times Newspaper Ltd.19, the court held that:

“For the purpose of this defence, the factors relating to the conduct and
decisions of the publisher or journalist are to be considered objectively
in the light of the matters known to the defendant at the time of
publication and are not to be judged with the benefit of hindsight on
matters not known to him at the time of publication.”
The essence of the plea of fair and bona fide comment is that it should
be comment on facts truly stated on a matter of public interest. In other
words given facts, which are true, as regards a matter of public interest,
is open to any member of the public at large to comment on them fairly,
but if any allegation of fact imputing any fact imputing any act or acts of
misconduct is made in the course of the comment, the libel is out of the
sphere of fair comment and can be justified only on the ground that the
allegation is true.20
So, in the present case, the Respondent, Mr. Harmeet Singh, didn’t knew
that the Appellant was the ex-wife of his friend at the time of
publication. So, as in the precedent stated above, this fact should be
considered while making judgement. There is no ill motive on the side
of the Respondent.
Whatever was stated in the clinical report of Sabina was covered under
the defense of Fair Comment and Qualified Privilege and there is no
mala fide intention on the part of the Respondent.
19
(2001) 4 All ER 115
20
Law of Torts, J.N.Pandey
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
ISSUE 3: Is the newspaper and Mr. Harmeet Singh liable for paying
damages to Smt. Geeta Pandey for defamation of her character in public
relations?
The counsel humbly submits to the Hon’ble Court the following
argument. The newspaper “DAILY MAIL” and Mr. Harmeet Singh is
not liable for paying damages to Smt. Geeta Pandey for defamation of
her character in public relations as there is no evident defamation as the
case falls within the defense of Fair Comment and Qualified Privilege.
In the case of Fraser v. Evans & others21, Lord Denning observed held
that:
“The Court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it
is defamatory, when the defendant says that 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 be out.”

In the case of Rustom K. Karanjia And Anr. vs Krishnaraj M.D.

Thackersey22, it was held that:
“On the issue of "qualified privilege", the arguments went on for very
long, for more than 22 days, and on that point, the appellants have failed.
It is true that they have succeeded in the appeal partially to the extent of
reduction of quantum of damages by half, but if they had confined their
21
(1969) 1 All ER 8
22
AIR 1970 Bom 424, (1970) 72 BOMLR 94, ILR 1971 Bom 324
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
arguments only to the quantum of damages, the appeal would have been
disposed of in not more than five or six days. In these circumstances,
therefore, we think that the appellants will have to pax four-fifth of the
costs of the appeal to respondent No. 1 and bear their own costs.”
Exemplary damages could be awarded in an action of tort where the
defendant has not only committed a legal wrong but has also behaved in
an outrageous and insulting manner. The decision of House of Lords
in Rookes v. Barnard23, Lord Devlin restricted exemplary damages only
to the following categories of cases:
a. oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of
the government,
b. the defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a
profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation
payable to the plaintiff,
c. exemplary damages are expressly authorized by statute.
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of
India24, it was held that:
“In today's free world freedom of press is the heart of social and
political intercourse; the press has now assumed the role of the public
educator; the purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by
publishing facts and opinions.”
In case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras25,it was held that:
“Freedom of speech and press has always been upheld.”
The counsel further contends that Press being one of the pillars of
democracy, is duty bound to inform the masses of the ill effects of the
injudicious use of pesticides, insecticides etc. The counsel states that the
23
[1964] UKHL 1
24
(1985) 1 SCC 641
25
1950 SCC 436 : AIR 1950 SC 124, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCC 449 : AIR 1950 SC 129 and Sakal Papers
(P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
publication of newspaper articles, based on scientific studies, affecting
public health comes under the "fair information on a matter of public
interest".
For this purpose, reliance has been placed on Webb v. Times Publishing
Co. Ltd. 26where it was held as follows:
"A communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the
party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a
duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest
or duty, although it contains criminatory matter, which without this
privilege, would be slanderous and actionable."

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised,
argument advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and
implored before the Hon’ble High court of Bombay, that it may be
graciously pleased to be adjudged and declared that:
The decision of the lower court to be upheld relieve Mr. Harmeet Singh
and the Daily Mail Newspaper from any kind of liability.
Also, award the cost of this appeal to the Respondents and any other cost
which the court may deem fit.
26
(1960) (2) Q.B. 535)
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Also pass any order that the court may deem fit in the favour of
Defendant to meet the ends of equity, justice, and good conscience.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT