No error in High Court order on cash deposit, guarantee: Supreme Court
In a setback to Times Now television channel, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with an interim order of the Bombay High Court that directed the Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 20 crore in cash and Rs. 80 crore as bank guarantee in the court in a defamation suit filed by the former Supreme Court judge, P.B. Sawant, claiming Rs. 100 crore as damages.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya said: “there is no error in the High Court's interim order. We find no reason to interfere with the order.”
Appearing for Times Global, senior advocate Harish Salve said there were serious questions arising out of the High Court order and it should be stayed. There was no evidence to show that anyone was misled by showing the wrong photograph. The court should go into whether showing a wrong photograph would amount to defamation and how the amount of Rs. 100 crore was quantified.
The Bench, however, dismissed his plea, but clarified that the High Court would not be influenced by Monday's proceedings and would decide the case on merits.
Times Global company runs 24-hour English News channel Times Now, and is a sister concern of Bennett, Coleman & Co, which publishes The Times of India.
It had appealed to the High Court against a Pune district court order directing the company to pay Justice Sawant Rs. 100 crore by way of unliquidated exemplary damages.
Justice Sawant, a former chairman of the Press Council of India, had sued Times Now in a Pune civil court for wrongly displaying his photo in a provident fund scam-related news report. The “provident fund scam” report was shown allegedly involving the then sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice P.K. Samanta, but it ran the photo of Justice Sawant on September 10, 2008 in its 6.30 p.m. news bulletin.
The Pune court passed a decree directing the channel to pay Rs. 100 crore as damages.
On an appeal from the company, the High Court directed it to deposit Rs. 20 crore in cash and Rs. 80 crore by way of bank guarantee. The present appeal is directed against that order.
The channel sought the quashing of the impugned order and an interim stay of its operation.
Keywords: Times Now, defamation case, Justice Sawant
I agree that defamation can be granted and even a penalty levied as there was a mistake involved. At the same time,leveling a penalty of Rs. 100 crores is unheard and uncalled for. When a person dies of accident, When granting compensation amount, the court decides the compensation based on the fact how much the deceased person would have earned if he was alive basing on his monthly earning.In conclusion, I agree damages should be paid to the victim who had to go through the trauma when his picture was telecasted in place of someone else, At the same time, The penalty has to be reasonable, running into crores is beyond my understanding.
There have been far too many instances where irresponsible
journalists, tv channels included, have gone out of their way to print
completely libelous news items despite knowing what they are doing. On
getting caught, as in the present instance, their usual defense is to
say that it was a mistake. More often than not the person harmed is in
no position to defend themselves and thus the news, by default, goes
on to become the new truth.
Many felicitations to the Supreme Court on its wisdom in the present
case.
I fully agree with Mr Sachin M. Have we ever heard of such a high compensation being considered by any Indian Court if the victim is an ordinary citizen? In this case, the mistake seems to be an unintentional mistake, but then also since a crime has been committed, it has to be punished and the aggrieved party be compensated, however, it must be logical and commensurate with the crime committed. The system should not be allowed to be misused to satisfy greed of human kind.
And for whom we are awarding this compensation - for his children or grand children or great grand children? Certainly not for the person himself as at this age what would he do with this Rs. 100 crores? Would he do charity to make his image in public? Why does he want this money - this must also be questioned.
I agree its wrong but for a different reason.
Of late, its starting to feel more and more that there are different sets of rules depending on whether you are an ordinary citizen, a politician or a judge.
The ordinary unconnected folks are always at the recieving end.
The politicians (or politically connected) enjoy AC stay in hospital or at worst, preferential first class treatment in jail.
And if anyone says a word or raises a finger about a judge, all the other judges come together and maul away - in this case a Rs100 crore burden! I wish instead they could have awarded even a Rs50 lakh fine to Manu Sharma. Or what about a fair judgment for Bhopal gas victims?
No power including the judiciary should enjoy god status in a democracy. Humble request to the courts is to please come closer to the masses of India and come down from your high chairs (literally).
Sorry Mr. Satyandhar Jain, I do not agree with your view an apology should suffice. It can happen again and again. Make a simple apology and the matter is over ? I am afraid it does not work that way. The only way is a penalty, a tough penalty that pinches. Now that they are slapped with a Rs. 20 crores deposit with Rs. 80 crores bank guarantee, they sit up and take notice. Just not the TimesNow channel, but all media should be subjected to such harsh penalties and only then would they take ample care and responsibility for what they write or air. The end result would be better journalism - with responsibility.
An apology goes to one person or a family and costs nothing. Tthe broadcast has gone to the nation or the world. An apology is no deterrent. The damage, the hurt is unimaginable and can't be quantified. This has to be controlled. I'm all for freedom of speech as long as it does not hurt anyone.
It seems totally wrong decision as Times Now has already apologized for mistake.
I applaud the view of the Supreme court. This is the only way media houses will learn to be responsible
The Times of India was acquired by Sahu Prasad Jain after his father-in-law Mr Dalmia was sent to jail for robbing the coffers of Bharat Insurance Company, Mr Dalmia acquired Bharat Insurance Company with the help, patronage and assistance of an eminent lawyer of the day called Mr M.A.Jinnah. Subsequently after acquiring Bharat Insurance and Lahore Electric Supply Company for a few Lakhs of Rupees. Mr Dalmia then scrumptiously he sold the securities,shares and bonds worth Crores held in the treasury of Bharat Insurance and acquired several companies and married several women. One such company acquired was Bennett & Coleman Ltd. Now they are the Preachers of Morality - what an Irony!!
Be it Times Now or Times of India they behave like Wild Elephant who can
run over anyone tarnishing there image be it individual or groups if
such rulings come again and again Media will become much responsible and
will think 100 times before they say something else they
publish/broadcast whatever they like as if they are licensed to kill ...
how many people get a chance to contact a former chief justice of the supreme court and get his comments and print them along with the news item to elicit some sympathy from the public? only a media house can do it and Times Now has done it. some are more equal.
ananda
Very Good !! If there is one media company which deserves to be fined, it's that entire conglomerate of Times of India/Times Now et al. Never seen more pathetic pseudo-journalists masquerading as journalists.
Admittedly, the quality of "fact checking" leaves much to be desired in our Indian media. Another serious question relates to the quantum of money that the lost reputation is being equated to. Yet another question is, whether there was malicious intent ? The names "P. K. Samant" and "P. B. Sawant" being lexically and phonetically so close, I would attribute the allegedly libelous act to an honest mistake unless proven otherwise.
Unfortunately the requirement to prove malicious intent is lacking in Indian defamation laws, as well as in the IT Act's definition of online defamation (the need of a special definition is itself baffling). These are areas for law reform. The right to defend one's reputation is definitely important. However, there are many ways to go about it. In a precedent case with some similarities (former judge C. S. Dharmadhikari alleging online defamation, as reported in Mumbai Mirror, 15 April 2010) the aggrieved party initiated a police action based on IT Act provisions rather than a civil suit running into crores. For the unfortunate target of the action, the choice is between the devil and the deep sea. It would be in the public interest to change the laws to require that malicious intent be established first, so as to exempt cases of honest mistakes as well as those cases of valid criticism. Clearly one can't expect the police to draw fine distinctions but one would expect Courts to take a more wholesome view of any such situation. In my view, this calls for law reform.
Editors Guild has expressed concern about the implications of Supreme Court's order, as if the High court or Supreme Court has confirmed the decree passed in the Suit for defamation and thereby restrained the media or curtailed its unbridled freedom . The Pune Civil Court has decreed the Suit for defamation, directing the Times Global to pay damages of Rs.100 crores to Justice Sawant . Time Global has filed an Appeal against the decree for payment of Rs. 100 crores along with an application for Stay of the decree pending disposal of Appeal. As per mandatory provisions of Civil Procedure Code the Appellate Court Shall not grant stay of a decree for payment of money unless the entire amount of decree is deposited or Security provided. As such High Court directed deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs into Court and give Bank guarantee for Rs.80 lakhs.High Court Bombay or Supreme Court has not gone into merits of the case and decided the Appeal. Media is not above Law . Do not forgive such defamation .
Harish Salve is wrong when he says "There was no evidence to show that anyone was misled by showing the wrong photograph". The name P.B. Sawant until recently was associated in my mind as the chair of the Press Council of India before whom I appeared to argue my complaint against India Today. I won the case and the publication was censured . I do not watch the Times Now channel but news reports of the telecast have affected me. The human brain is capable of enormous imagination and all that it needs is a trigger. That trigger has done the damage. Today when the name PB Sawant comes to my mind it does not come with the PCI. It comes with the Ghaziabad scandal.
Many of the news channels by virtue of the power of broadcast present excited versions of their stories without checking and double cheeking their stories. They believe they can get away with this even as they cause immense damage to the reputation of respectable citizens.The High court is right in their decision and the media should practice responsible journalism not 24/7 or breaking news.
I am happy with the Apex court ruling! Mere apology now means nothing!
Please Email the Editor