Welcome to Legalkhabar.online, in this article you will understand a case on Defamation.
Name of the Case: D.P. CHOUDHARY AND ORS. VS KUMARI MANJULATA
Citation: AIR 1997 RAJ 170
Name of Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Plaintiff- Respondent in the case: KUMARI MANJULATA
Defendant- Appellants in the case: D.P.CHOUDHARY & ORS.
Hon'ble Judge: JUSTICE MOHD.YAMIN
Date of Judgement : 4th APRIL , 1997
Facts:
The case of D.P. Choudhary & Ors vs. Kumari Manjulata revolves around a defamatory publication in a local newspaper in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Kumari Manjulata, a minor and a student, was the daughter of a well-respected individual in her community. On a daily newspaper named Dainik Navjyothi, owned and published by D.P. Choudhary and others printed a false news report alleging that Kumari Manjulata had eloped with a boy named Kamlesh. The report claimed she had been missing and insinuated an immoral character, which was entirely untrue. This publication had a profound and detrimental impact on Manjulata’s reputation, her family’s social standing, and caused her significant mental distress and humiliation. The defamatory news spread quickly within the community, causing widespread gossip and speculation, which severely affected Manjulata’s future prospects and her family's dignity.In response to this false and damaging report, Kumari Manjulata, through her guardian, filed a civil suit for damages against D.P. Choudhary and others, seeking compensation for the harm caused by the defamatory publication.
Issues
1.Whether the news item published was true or false?
2.Did the News article intend to harm the reputation of kumari Manjulata?
3.Was the lower court right in awarding damages of 10,000?
Arguments of Parties:
Defendant/Appellants (D.P. Choudhary & Others):
1. Lack of Personal Knowledge:- The defendants stated they did not personally know the plaintiff. They claimed the news was gathered by their reporter, who obtained the information from a police station. They asserted there was no intention to defame the plaintiff.
2. Source of Information:
- They contended that the information was based on facts confirmed by the plaintiff’s mother. However, the plaintiff’s mother was not cross-examined, and thus the authenticity of the information was not established.
3. Good Intention Claim:
- The defendants argued that the article was published with the intention of helping Manjulata reunite with her parents. The court found this argument peculiar, noting the defendants had not consulted the family regarding this intent.
4. Police Source Not Examined:
- They mentioned receiving the information from police constable Ramesh Chandra, who was not presented as a witness. Therefore, there was no evidence to verify the police's source of information.
5. Lack of Legal Documentation:
- No challan or legal action against Kamlesh was documented or mentioned in the court record.
6. Absence of Written Records:
- There was no written information in any register presented before the court to support their claims.
Plaintiff/Respondent (Kumari Manjulata):
1. False Medical Claims:
- The plaintiff argued that the defendants presented false information about her medical treatment and medication.
2. Witness Testimonies:
- Multiple witnesses from the plaintiff’s side confirmed that the information published in the newspaper was false.
3. Lack of Evidence by Defendants:
- The defendants failed to produce accurate evidence to support their claims about the article's veracity.
4. Reputational Damage:
- Manjulata testified that the news article damaged her family’s reputation and decreased her marriage prospects, which was corroborated by witness testimonies.
Judgement:
Issue 1: Whether the news item published was true or false?The court first addressed the issue of whether the news article published by the defendants was true or false. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the court concluded that the news item alleging Kumari Manjulata had eloped with a boy named Kamlesh was entirely false. The defendants failed to provide any credible evidence to substantiate their claims. They relied on information purportedly obtained from a police constable and alleged confirmation by the plaintiff’s mother, neither of whom were presented or cross-examined in court. The court noted the absence of any written records or verifiable sources to support the publication. Therefore, the court held that the news item was indeed false and unverified, published without any factual basis.
Issue 2: Did the news article intend to harm the reputation of Kumari Manjulata?
The second issue examined by the court was whether the news article was published with the intent to harm Kumari Manjulata’s reputation. The court considered the defendants' argument that they had no malice and intended to act in the public interest. However, the court found this argument unconvincing. The defendants did not take any steps to verify the accuracy of the information before publishing it, which demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth. The court observed that publishing such a defamatory article without verification showed a negligent and irresponsible attitude. The false publication had serious implications for Manjulata’s social standing and mental well-being, indicating that the defendants should have reasonably foreseen the harm their article would cause. The court concluded that, while there may not have been explicit malice, the defendants' actions were sufficient to constitute an intent to harm her reputation through their reckless disregard for the truth.
Issue 3: Was the lower court right in awarding damages of ₹10,000?
The third issue was whether the lower court’s award of ₹10,000 in damages was appropriate. The court reviewed the impact of the defamatory publication on Kumari Manjulata. It was established that the false news had caused significant damage to her reputation and mental health. The testimonies of family members and other witnesses, as well as medical records, supported the claim that the defamatory article had severely affected her life, reducing her marriage prospects and causing social humiliation. Considering the evidence of harm suffered by the plaintiff and the reckless behavior of the defendants, the court found that the award of ₹10,000 in damages by the lower court was justified and appropriate. The damages awarded were deemed reasonable compensation for the distress and reputational harm endured by Manjulata.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the decision of the lower court. The judgment reinforced the responsibility of the press to verify information before publication and underscored the legal protections against defamation. The court affirmed that the defendants were liable for publishing false and defamatory content and that the awarded damages were appropriate for the harm caused to Kumari Manjulata.
Analysis
It is said "If an Gold Ornament is lost it can be recovered but if a reputation is lost, it cannot be recovered no matter how much effort one individual put, he will fail to recover his lost reputation", Reputation is an essential jewel of Human Beings, one should take care of his reputation and others reputation as well, it's an moral responsibility of every individual to respect the Reputation of others.
Related Laws and Sections Involved in the Case of D.P. Choudhary & Ors vs. Kumari Manjulata
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
1. Section 499 - Defamation:
- This section defines defamation as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person.
- Explanation 1 of this section clarifies that imputation can be made either by words spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations.
- The case of D.P. Choudhary & Ors vs. Kumari Manjulata falls under this section as the news item published was false and harmed Manjulata's reputation.
2. Section 500 - Punishment for Defamation:
- This section provides the punishment for defamation, which may include simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
- In the civil suit filed by Kumari Manjulata, the claim for damages falls under the purview of this section.
Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908:
1. Section 19 - Suits for Compensation for Wrong Done to Person or Movable Property:
- According to this section, suits for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the wrong was done or where the defendant resides.
- The civil suit filed by Kumari Manjulata for damages due to defamation falls under this section.
The Constitution of India:
1. Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- This article guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. However, it is subject to reasonable restrictions.
- The defendants in the case argued their right to freedom of the press under this article.
2. Article 19(2) - Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- This clause allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
- The court upheld these restrictions in the context of defamation.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964):
- Although not an Indian case, this landmark judgment in the United States established the actual malice standard, which is relevant in defamation cases involving public figures. The principles discussed in this case influence global defamation law, including in India.
2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):
- This case underscored the importance of freedom of the press in India but also highlighted that this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973):
- This case reiterated the significance of press freedom in a democratic society but also recognized that this freedom must be balanced with other societal interests.
