It will have a chilling effect on operations of the media in India: N. Ravi
An international voice has joined the chorus of Indian media associations criticising the award of Rs. 100 crore in damages against Times Now in a defamation case.
On Saturday, the International Press Institute termed the award “disproportionately high” and warned that such large damages could “place such an economic burden on media outlets that their survival is seriously threatened as a consequence.”
A Pune court awarded the damages to former Supreme Court judge P.B. Sawant, whose photograph was wrongly displayed by the channel in a news item on a corruption scam.
The Bombay High Court directed the channel to deposit Rs. 20 crore and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining amount before hearing any appeal against that verdict. The Supreme Court refused to interfere.
Criticising the ruling, in particular considering the global trend in democratic countries towards placing a cap on damages awarded for defamation, IPI Executive Director Alison Bethel McKenzie said that “in the United Kingdom, the recent campaign that eventually led to a reform of the U.K. libel law, called for capping damages at £10,000 [about Rs. 8 lakh]...”
‘Chilling effect'
IPI board member and director of Kasturi & Sons Limited N. Ravi also felt the magnitude of the damages was “wholly out of line” with the general quantum of damages awarded by Indian courts. “It is obvious that an award of damages of this magnitude will have a chilling effect on the operations of the media in the country,” Mr. Ravi told IPI.
“The judiciary has been protecting the freedom of expression of the media, writers and creative artists, and has been expanding the boundaries of free speech as well. It is ironic that a retired Supreme Court Judge should have initiated such an action and that the higher judiciary should have allowed the initial judicial aberration to continue,” he said.
Keywords: Times Now, defamation case, Justice Sawant, IPI
The question is larger than the disproportionate nature of
compensation. The media can not everything for granted in the name of
freedom of expression. you have a larger role to play and with power
comes huge responsibility. The present media has forgotten it. No
compensation can replace a lost respect.
The judiciary by its verdict has once again proved that the pillars of democracy is still intact. criticising the judgement by the media even before the Times Now channel deposited the 20 crores certainly amounts to contempt. Does the media ever reacted to other judgments favouring the general public at large for instance., The supreme court judgement on water sharing between Tamil nadu and Karnataka, dam issue between Kerala and Tamil nadu, which the concerned states have neither heeded to the order of the highest judicial forum of the country. The present compensation awarded is a mighty blow with iron hands on the head of the media with such a lackadaisical approach towards the welfare of the general public and clocking only on minting money through advertisements.
I beg to differ with Mr Anurag Gupta's comment for the simple reason that the award in the present case should have nothing to do with the facts of Arushi's case or the Bhushans' case or any other case for that matter. If the media sinned in those cases, there should be separate trials and punishment to address that.
I can understand that a certain sum of money can be demanded as a reasonable compensation by the defamed party as they refuse to accept mere apologies from the TV channel. Justice (retd) Sawant has every right not to be content with mere apology. What is the fair amount, is then the million dollar question ! Comparing with Shashi Tharoor's claim of Rs 10 crores which certainly created a ripple and shocked many, Justice (retd) Sawant's claim is ten times bigger. Tharoor is a full time politician who has to face the public to seek votes. If he loses his seat on the account of an allegation that is defamatory as opposed to factual, he stands to lose future incomes for no fault of his. Reputation is everything for a politician. But Justice (retd) Samant can carry on with his profession or retirement without a comparable impact, especially if the matter is clarified and apologised. I understand that amounts above Rs.1 crore are unheard of in such cases. Other cases where retired Judges have claimed injury to reputation, such as the case of Justice (retd) C. S. Dharmadhikari have been cited as precedents but none ever crossed the Rs. 1 crore mark until now, where monetary compensation was sought. Even admitting the many fairly lucrative fields of economic activity open to retired Judges today, Rs 100 crore stands out as ludicrous and gross at the same time. The first impact of such a huge amount is to chill media and the average citizen into silence and submission. The damage on public interest will not be easy to reverse. We have to ask, where is that fair balance between public interest and the claim to a monetisable reputation ?
Why is it that Times Now did not set right the wrong they had done ?Why is it that the media fails to rectify its wrong? The media is a power unto itself and therefore they do not apologize adequately, repeat adequately.This is the root cause of this problem. Why was Justice (retd) Sawant forced to go to the courts?
The problem was not so big.His photo had been shown when it should not have been. For the next seven days, Times Now could show the correct photo as also half a dozen photos where Justice (retd) Sawant is seen in the company of dignitaries and in other honourable situations. This could be accompanied by a commentary on his distinguished life as well as a mention on why and how the error took place.
The TV rarely apologizes. This has to change. Else Rs 100cr is fair.
Media these days are concerned only about profits and sensationalism.
Will the channel spend the same amount of air time to correct the wrong reporting that it spent to tarnish a person's image? Certainly not. Only heavy financial penalty will act as a deterrent and lead to responsible reporting.
By all accounts, Times Now made a mistake and they apologized for the same which Mr. P.B. Sawant should have accepted instead of demading what is a certainly a hefty fine.
Even though the 100 cr penalty seems disproportionate for a blunder by concerned tv-channel but it may be a result of persistent anti-media feeling in public for many years now. The un-accountability of media and unwillingness to correct itself (radia tapes, paid news, breaking news syndromes) has given rise to such a resentment among viewers. Some cases where media runs totally wild stories and malign reputations of people in public life and being unapologetic about it, does not go very well with the public. Though judge may have his own reasons for such a penalty but the public resentment as well as the opportunity to set an example may have played some role too. It should also be emphasized that largely the national media and big media houses act much more responsibly as compared to regional or local media where extortionist tendencies are on the rise. In the end, people like a free and transparent media but not an unaccountable media.
There are a number of cases where the Media has exerted its muscle and run rough shod on individuals rights, who do not have the wherewithall to take on media on long, legal battles. Would call this justice and a long due lesson to be careful and highly aware and responsible of its work - the impact or damage is too high in this widely networked world. If you think of the reach of the media houses today, it is no longer restricted to any state or nation and most are global. Anyway, am sure Times Now will appeal, so judgements/opinions can be reserved until final judgement.
May be this will send the right message to media not to cover any events disproportionately. Financial penalty is the best way to regulate the Media which focus on profits rather than being responsible towards the society.
how can you place a limit on losses that i think i have incurred due to your irresponsibility (which you call freedom of expression?). unless there is such high damages, what ensures media is responsible in reporting ?
The IPI and others who object to the disproportinoately high damages awarded fail to understand that the awardee happens to be an ex-SC Judge.And it is very understandable that the SC has refused to intervene.It is laughable that these very same courts award paltry damages to litgants who are dragged and harassed by hospitals which through negligence cause the death of their near and dear ones.The honor of an ex-SC judge (even after perhaps anapology may have been aired and Published) is worth 10,000 times the worth of a common man who dies due to a hospital's negligence.Goes to show the value that is placed on a human life in this great country.
The members ofIPI who complain have a lot to answer: 1)why is it that they have scant support amongst the public? 2)why should UK be a role model for India ; we enrol Aadhar applicants @ 1m per day , UK could not even finish their electronic identity card project ! 3)why did the PCI , the IPI and Times Now fail to pacify Justice (retd) PB Sawant. Coming to the last point,it is worth debating. Should not Times Now have come to Justice Sawant's rescue by highlighting adequately and perhaps more than adequately to Justice Sawant's satisfaction that they had erred?
It is not very difficult to apologise genuinely and adequately to a person we have wronged. A five minute spot every day for one week in which Justice Sawant speaks of his own track record, Times Now highlights the mistake would have been a good starting point. I am sure the media can be even more creative with ideas on how to set right a wrong done by them. If the media had played its role well enough all would be well.
it is funny,,whole judicial,political system have failed, it is ironical,,one justice defamation brought 100 crore fine is unheard and call for whole court who are sucking 4 lakhs litigants and like me man who have been cheated by his property by fraudulent means could not go to court becuase of uncalled procedure,years of litigation,delayed justice is denied justice,,whole sufferers like me deserve trillion dollars suits,,when socalled judges going to introspect, shoe bearer know where pinches the nail,if he is mighty,powerful and power in his coffins,india state need drastic change in justice system,,it suck common man,,media also need some ombadsman,but not big fines,
"The judiciary has been protecting the freedom of expression of the media, writers and creative artists, and has been expanding the boundaries of free speech as well. It is ironic that a retired Supreme Court Judge should have initiated such an action.." suggests that retired judge had done something wrong; while in fact Times had published his photo wrongly. No quarter should be shown.
Media is supposed to present the news to the public without sensanalising it. When the media (print, digital or internet) oversteps its boundary and brings untold sufferings to the innocent by way of wrong reporting (intentional or otherwise), it deserves the harshest of the punishments. In my opinion the judge was lenient in limiting the damages to Rs.100 Crores.
Surely, the quantum of damages is going to have chilling effect on the Indian electronic media. But is good in the larger interests of the media and the common man's right to reputation, particulalry in the light of the style of functioning of the media, including Telugu TV channels.Freedom of Expression cannot used to destroy the Right to Reputation because the former is presently serving the interests of big business. The media has gone so low that they have overt bias towards certian political parties and politicians and function like their mouthpeices.
"If wealth is lost nothing is lost. But if Character is lost Every thing is lost".Going as per proverb , Times Now Channel, in haste shown a wrong Picture of a person in its news and does it not amount to character assaination , of the Innocent? Hence it is for "Times Now " to face the Stick and not a carrot for what it has done wrong to an innocent.
Is the media society accepting the mistake of concerned channel or condemning it???
Editors Guild, PCI Chairman Justice Katju and IPL board member and director of Kasturi & Sons Ltd , N. Ravi are correct in saying that award of Rs. 100/- crore damages is disproportionate and will have a chilling effect on the operations of the media in the Country. Every one should understand that the higher judiciary could set aside the decree only when the Appeal is heard. Unless and until Rs. 20/- crore is deposited and bank guarantee for remaining amount is given and stay obtained , Mr.justice P.B.Sawant is entitled to execute the decree for recovery of Rs. 100/- crore from Times Now TV Channel . To avoid such distress action , Times Now may in a special Telecast to the Nation in Prime time openly tender unconditional apology to Justice Sawant in the presence of Editors Guild, PCI Chairman and IPL board member N. Ravi and Pay Re.1/- as damages . All those who are interested in media's functioning may persuade Justice Sawant to forgive and accept the apology and token damages .
Thought the amount of 100 crore looks definitely high but about character assassination which media does and get away without an iota of punishment. One case comes to mind is Arushi murder case. Arushi character was tarnished beyond repair. Her parents also suffered. What about CD brought out by Media houses to defame Shanti and Prashant Bhusan. That CD looked like 100% fraud. Every body knows that it was fabricated.
Media is a self proclaimed honest and don't want any body to look over their shoulders.
Please Email the Editor