Investigative Journalism Doesn't Enjoy Special Protection; Public Interest Won't Permit Publication To Lower Down Reputation Without Any Truthfulness: Bombay HC
Emphasizing the importance of balancing freedom of the press with an individual's right to reputation, the Bombay High Court observed that while investigative journalism serves a vital role in society, it cannot come at the expense of defaming individuals."As a Journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it definitely cannot...
Emphasizing the importance of balancing freedom of the press with an individual's right to reputation, the Bombay High Court observed that while investigative journalism serves a vital role in society, it cannot come at the expense of defaming individuals.
"As a Journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it definitely cannot be attempted at the cost of defaming the Plaintiff. The freedom of press, which is being evolved as a species of speech, definitely will have to be balanced against a right, which an individual has to his reputation", the court said.
Justice Bharati Dangre said that the claim of having exposed many scams does not authorize a journalist to publish something which may result in hatred, ridicule or contempt of the plaintiff merely on the pretext that it is in the public interest.
“Investigative Journalism definitely does not enjoy any special protection and the umbrage of public interest definitely do not permit a publication, which would amount to lowering down the reputation of any person, in any manner particularly without justifying the publication on the basis of its truthfulness”, the court held.
The court, while allowing an interim application in a defamation suit seeking a temporary injunction against an investigative journalist during the pendency of the suit, directed him to remove various prima facie defamatory posts from YouTube, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook.
One Khanjan Thakkar, a gold trader with operations in Dubai and India, filed the suit seeking damages and injunction against Waahiid Khan, a journalist, for allegedly circulating defamatory information.
The crux of the case revolves around Khan's dissemination of information through various online platforms, which Thakkar claims to be false, derogatory, and misleading. Thakkar sought Rs. 100 Crores in damages and a permanent injunction against Khan from publishing or sharing any defamatory material about him.
Thakker also impleaded Google LLC, X Corp, and Meta Platform Inc., seeking direction for the removal of defamatory content from their platforms. Thakker filed an interim application seeking a temporary injunction against Khan pending the final disposal of the suit, arguing that Khan's actions were causing irreparable harm to his reputation.
The case stems from an FIR filed on November 07, 2023, alleging various criminal offences including cheating, forgery, and fraud. Thakkar was named as an accused in the FIR, which prompted Khan to run a series of stories linking Thakkar to illegal activities, including online betting and hawala transactions.
Khan justified his actions as those of a journalist exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. He claimed that it was his journalistic duty to report on matters of public interest. He claimed that the information he shared was aimed at raising awareness about potential scams. He claimed to report truthfully and impartially, aiming to provide an objective viewpoint to his audience.
After going through the alleged defamatory content, the court noted that the identity of the Plaintiff is clearly established, as along with the write ups, his identity card is also displayed.
While Khan claimed that his knowledge was limited to the FIR naming the plaintiff, the court observed that the impugned content Khan wrote about the plaintiff is not supported by the FIR. Khan has not offered a single justification of truth, the court observed.
“Obviously, the Defendant has not taken a reasonable precaution of ascertaining the truth before publication of the interview, by casting imputations which prima facie amount to defamatory statement”, the court said.
Just because Khan is interested in ascertaining the truth does not necessarily mean that the publication is in the public interest, particularly when the complaint is under investigation, the court added.
The court found it “highly surprising”, that a “responsible journalist”, without asserting the truthfulness of the information, thought it fit to put it on a public platform and in the public domain.
“A Journalist or Reporter is not expected to transgress the limits of his right of speech and expression and cannot claim protection by simply stating that the information, was provided to him by someone and it is in public interest to divulge the same, on the pretext that duty lies in giving out that information to the public.”
The court granted Thakkar's interim application, issuing a temporary injunction restraining Khan from publishing or sharing any defamatory material about him. Additionally, Khan was directed to remove a total of ten videos and posts specified in the order from YouTube, X (Twitter) and Facebook within a week.
Case no. – Interim Application (L) No. 399 of 2024
Case Title – Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors