Landmark Judgments On Defamation

 Ram Jethmalani VS Subramaniam Swamy (3rd January,2006)

Citation : AIR 2006 DELHI,126(2006)DLT 535

Bench : Pradeep Nandrajog,J.

Matter : Civil Defamation

Law : Law of Torts

Introduction

The case was named as Ram Jethmalani vs Subramaniam Swamy on 3 January, 2006
AIR 2006 Delhi 300, 126 (2006) DLT 535. This case is in itself eminent because of two
reasons, one that is it is one of the incredible explained judgment, second that it is
between two unprecedented legitimate feathers of India, one of them that is
Subramaniam Swamy an Indian politician, economist and statistician moreover
connected with administrative issues and the other one is Ram Jethmalani a lawyer
and politician. At whatever point offence in India inspected, defamation is something
reliably suggested, in stream of same this case comment is expected to have all
around appreciation of this case which is enunciated by Delhi HC. This suit was given
by the Central Government under Section 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act 1952.

Background

The facts of the case are as per the following:

Defendant (Subramaniam Swamy) asserted that the then CM of Tamil Nadu Ms.
Jayalalitha had earlier info of the attack identifying with death of Rajiv Gandhi, and
she had association with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ellam (LTTE), anyway he denied to
unveil the source of data. Petitioner (Ram Jethmalani) drew in as senior advice to
speak to CM. Petitioner cross examined the defendant, in the same, defendant said
something against Mr Jethmalani such that he has two spouses which was not in any
manner applicable anyway he was sorry for the equivalent for harming yet at the
same time stucked with his announcement.

On 14.10.1995 when defendant presented the "Written Concluding Argument " in

which he precluded to give source from securing data of that claim and furthermore
said that " According to my data, Mr Jethmalani has been getting cash from the LTTE
being deposited in his son’s record in CITIBANK in New York" as this announcement
was not for customer but for the counsel. For such a claim a suit was documented by
plaintiff, Mr. Jethmalani charging that defendant was liable of awful and gross
defamation for which the petitioner asserted to entitled excellent harms.

Petitioner asserted that he procures a decent notoriety in India and outside the
nation,
and these- sort of explanations superfluously harms the individual, political and
proficient notoriety of the petitioner and for similar he recorded a suit in High court
of Delhi to get remuneration for the loss of notoriety.

Issues of the case

(i) Whether the suit is banned under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952?
(ii) Whether the culpable articulations/entries were not distributed by the
defendant?
(iii) Whether the culpable articulations/entries were made in compliance with
common decency ?
(iv) To what measure of harm is the petitioner qualified for recover from the
defendant?
(v) Relief and expenses?

Judgment

It was held by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog that declaration made by respondent was
from the start sight defamatory. It was an occasion of outperforming the advantage
and that without any other individual was held to be verification of noxiousness. The
declaration was very on related with and unessential to the condition, certifiable
malice on some bit of defendant was settled in. This hurt the image of petitioner all
over the place and such case wreck the individual and political notoriety, as LTTE is
restricted affiliation and interfacing the name with it prompts loss of notoriety.
Anyway, such disaster isn't recoverable, said by equity, yet remuneration of Rs 5 lacs
allowed for petitioner and against the defendant, thinking about his calling status
and his cultural position. In the judgment Honorable Justice additionally discussed
numerous hypotheses by methods for which Subramaniam Swami remarks could get
away from the domain of criticism yet each time he contemplated out the
fastidiously why those speculations and cases are not pertinent in this impossible to
the case.

Analysis

I concur with the choice given by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog as the case choice is
effectively coordinated with rule of law with its understandings and points of
reference.
While ordering compensation, it was realized that the petitioner comprises of good
notoriety in all manner and mischief to his expert,individual or political notoriety as
the announcement is ex-facie slanderous if not legitimized must be repaid by
adequate compensation.
A portion of the points of reference and rules which assumed a significant job in
judgment are as per the following:

i. Section - 6 of Commission of Inquiry Act ,1952 limit the data given to the
degree it is inquired as to whether not then the insurance is inaccessible.

ii. Absolute benefit isn't total with regards to being vast, on the off chance that
essential or pertinent, at that point just invulnerability is accessible.

Conclusion

As per me the judgment conveyed was suitable as the comments by Subramaniam

Swamy were shown abusive as the charge made by him on Ram Jethmalani that LLTE
kept assets in Ram Jethmalani's child a/c, was refuted. Likewise, the comments were
made against Ram Jethmalani. Furthermore, thirdly, it was set up that the comments
were distributed as Subramaniam Swamy read the slanderous proclamations in the
methodology considerably after they were erased by the experts in Justice M.C. Jain
Commission of Inquiry. This case sets a decent point of reference where injurious
proclamations are given and benefit are guaranteed however guarantee isn't
sensible to be applied as it was past its capacity.

 Priya Ramani V/S Mobashar Akbar (17th February, 2021)

CNR No. : DLCT120000252019

Matter : Criminal Defamation

Sections and Act : U/s 500 IPC read with Section 499 of IPC

“The right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the

right to life and dignity of a woman”

Facts of the Case

In October 2018, during the #MeToo movement in India, Priya Ramani an Indian
journalist, writer and editor alleged sexual harassment against former minister of
state for External Affairs M.J Akbar. Vogue India published an article written by Priya
Ramani and the title was “To the Harvey Weinstein of the world”, it was in a form of
an open letter starting with “Dear Male Boss” in which she had described about the
sexual harassment during a job interview in a hotel room when she was 23. But in
that article, Priya Ramani hadn’t mentioned the name of the interviewer. At the time
of #MeToo movement, on Twitter Priya Ramani tweeted and made an allegation of
sexual harassment against former union minister and Journalist M. J Akbar. Priya
Ramani tweeted with a reference to her 2017 Vogue article, starting with “I began
the piece with M.J Akbar story. Never named him because he didn’t “do” anything.
Lots of women have worse stories about this predator- maybe they’ll share”. Soon
after Ramani’s tweets, more women accused Akbar of sexual harassment during his
career as a journalist.

M.J Akbar filed a criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani and he resigned as
minister of state for External Affairs. M.J Akbar accused Priya Ramani of willfully,
deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously defaming him over a completely false
allegation. Akbar sought Priya Ramani under section 499 (defamation) and
punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Delhi’s Patiala house court
granted Priya’s bail against a personal bond and a surety of Rs.10,000. Then, the
defamation charge was framed against her, to which she was proven not guilty. Over
the course of two years, the argument went on at the Rose Avenue court before an
Additional chief Metropolitan magistrate.

Judgment

On 17 February, 2021 Delhi court acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in former union
minister M.J Akbar’s defamation case against her and said that a woman has the
right to voice her grievance even after several years. Referring to the great
‘RAMAYANA’ and ‘MAHABHARATA’ in its judgement, the court said that these
ancient epics were written to show the importance of dignity of a woman and its
very shameful that these types of incidents are still happening in our societies.
Most women do not talk about the sexual harassment due to a lot of reasons.
Sometimes the victim does not understand what is happening to her and what she
should do. Despite going through extreme cruelty, they chose to stay quiet, the court
said.
The court accepted the fact that M.J Akbar was not a man of stellar reputation and
pointed that the right to reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right to
life and dignity of a woman.

So, recently in the judgement of M.J Akbar v. Priya Ramani the court said that:
· Even a man of social status can be a sexual harasser.
· The right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of right to life and dignity of
women.
· The women have a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice and
even after decades.

Conclusion

The judgment tries to persuade society to understand that a victim may not speak up
for years because of many reasons like societal pressure, mental trauma and often
being afraid of disbelieved. And highlighted the point that a woman has all the right
to speak up about the abuse, even after decades.

As we know that media and social media are sources of information concerning
crime and sexual assault for the majority of the public. The media can help to create
a greater understanding of what sexual assault is and why it is intolerable. That is the
reason why survivors select social media to share their allegations as a form of self-
defense.

Priya Ramani case is a huge success for all the # MeToo Movement survivors and
hopefully this will restrict the powerful men from using the defamation law to
silence victims. As the court also said that a woman has all the right to speak up
about the sexual harassment even after decades. This judgement will really help to
make the society understand about how sexual harassment is completely unlawful
and unacceptable.