Punjab & Haryana High Court Stays Order Directing Journalist Rahul Pandita To Pay Rs 50 Lakh Compensation For Writing Allegedly Defamatory Article
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed a stay on the execution of a decree till the next hearing, wherein a Mohali Court had directed journalist Rahul Pandita to give Rs. 50 lakh in compensation to a CRPF officer, for allegedly writing a defamatory article in The Hindu in 2014 against him.Pandita had allegedly written an article with respect to an encounter between CPI Maoists and...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed a stay on the execution of a decree till the next hearing, wherein a Mohali Court had directed journalist Rahul Pandita to give Rs. 50 lakh in compensation to a CRPF officer, for allegedly writing a defamatory article in The Hindu in 2014 against him.
Pandita had allegedly written an article with respect to an encounter between CPI Maoists and CRPF personnel. Harpreet Singh Sidhu, former IG then deputed in CRPF alleged that the article portrayed him as an irresponsible officer.
Justice Gurbir Singh while issuing notice on the plea challenging the order, deferred the matter for October 21 and said, "the execution of decree shall be kept in abeyance till next date of hearing only."
The Court was hearing a regular second appeal against an appellate Court order, whereby it granted Rs 50 lakh compensation to a former IG, Harpreet Singh Sidhu on account of loss of reputation due to an alleged defamatory article written by journalist Rahul Pandita.
Sidhu had earlier filed a suit for defamation seeking compensation but the same was dismissed. However, the appellate Court allowed the plea stating that "Though there cannot be any assessment of actual loss of reputation and mental agony in terms of money, but keeping in view of all the facts and law as discussed above, I deem it proper to allow Rs.50 lacs as compensation to the plaintiff from the defendant no.1 Sh. Rahul Pandita for loss of reputation and good will, mental agony and hardship due to unfounded derogatory remarks amounting to defamation against the plaintiff."
The counsel for Pandita submitted that the Appellate Court proceeded against him ex-parte because the addresses to which the summons were sent were not correct.
The plea also stated that "the articles are not personal in nature or do not invade the privacy of the respondent in any manner. Rather, the articles have been authored (after due care and reasonable caution). The articles are published in a bonafide discharge of official duties and not with any malice,"
"The articles are published in relation to an incident in Chhattisgarh in which around 1500 CRPF men under the command of the respondent, who could not thwart an attack by 80-90 Maoists. 14 soldiers, including two officers died and the Maoists managed to loot a huge cache of arms and ammunition. The article was in public interest i.e. the public has a legitimate interest in knowing about the same. The articles are published in relation to the conduct of a public servant, in exercise of public duties and thus the respondent (admittedly) being a public servant cannot question foul-play," it added.
Reliance is placed on R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.(1994) a landmark case on freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy.
Pandita also contended in the petition that, being a journalist it is permitted to make fair comments over the incident as it occurred in the present case, and had the appellant been properly served, he could have also proved that the article was both accurate and truthful.
In light of the above, the petition seeks to set aside the impugned order.
Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kshitij, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for the Rahul Pandita.
Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the caveators-respondents.
Title: RAHUL PANDITA V. HARPREET SINGH SIDHU AND OTHERS