The Delhi High Court, in the defamation suit of Union Minister, Smriti Irani against Congress Leader has reiterated that reputation cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of others right to free speech.
The single-judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while issuing summons to Congress leaders in civil defamation suit seeking damages of ₹2 crores for making allegations against her and her daughter regarding the said restaurant.a restaurant named Silly Souls Cafe and Bar, located in Goa.
After analysing the material on record, the Court noted that the same potrayed the plaintiff and her family members in a very defamatory sense.
"Since the plaintiff commands an esteemed position as a Minister in the Government of India and considering the nature of her public office, there is immense public glare and scrutiny of any information about the plaintiff in public domain."
It was of the view that the defendants have conspired with each other and other individuals and organisations to launch a tirade of false, scathing and belligerent personal attacks on the plaintiff and her daughter with a common motive to malign, defame and injure the reputation, moral character and public image of the plaintiff and her daughter.
prima facie view that slanderous and libellous allegations have been made against the plaintiff without verifying the actual facts. Great injury has been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff and her family in view of the various tweets and re-tweets which have followed the Press Conference carried out by the defendants.
"After having seen the various documents which have been filed by the plaintiff and also the excerpts from the Press Conference carried out by the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, I am of prima facie view that slanderous and libellous allegations have been made against the plaintiff without verifying the actual facts. Great injury has been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff and her family in view of the various tweets and re-tweets which have followed the Press Conference carried out by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3."
It referred to Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, 2016 Latest Caselaw 932 SC wherein it was held that reputation cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of others right to free speech
The Court reiterated that protection of individual right is imperative for social stability in a body polity, and when harm is caused to an individual, the society as a whole is affected.
It went on to mention Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 Latest Caselaw 611 SC in which it was held that reputation of an individual has been placed at the highest altar and has been considered as akin to Right to Life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, there is imperative need to protect reputation of an individual, least to say, that of the plaintiff who is a respected member of the society and esteemed member of the Union Ministry, the Court said.
Giving referrence to Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy, (2006), the Court noted that a person making the statement must establish that the statement was a comment and not a fact.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments