'Opposition Has Right To Question Govt Actions': Delhi HC Refuses Temporary Injunction In AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot's Defamation Plea Against BJP MLA
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware...
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot, who sued BJP MLA Vijender Gupta for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him over procurement of 1,000 low-floor buses.
Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.
Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores for defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.
While disposing of the interim applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, the Single Bench of Justice Asha Menon observed,
"It cannot be overlooked that both, the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1, are public figures and members of the Legislative Assembly. There is a right vested in the Opposition to question the government on its actions, as the Executive is subject to the Legislature under the Constitution. This is key to the maintenance of the balance of power between the two wings of the State."
The Bench noted that Gupta had raised starred questions in the Assembly regarding the tenders, but he did not receive sufficient answers. Thus, to now prevent him from commenting on the issue would not only amount to a "gag order", but would also prevent him from effectively discharging his public duties as an MLA by raising questions legitimately, on action taken or not taken by the government, particularly when it would be obligated, at least in the Assembly, to answer the very same questions.
"It would also amount to a restraint on the defendant No.1 from raising issues of public importance, which would impact the public and about which the public has a right to know and be informed. It is the elected representatives of the people who are expected to raise the concerns of the public in appropriate fora."
The Bench clarified that only if blatant lies and falsehoods, detrimental to public order and morality or adversely affecting the security of the country or national interests are being disseminated through social-media platforms, can there be a restraint imposed as being reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
"Else, none should be prevented from expressing their opinions including suspicions or doubts on Government's transaction of business. In the process public figures such as Ministers like the plaintiff, may be lampooned. But they must bear it with fortitude and allow their actions to speak louder than words."
The Court added,
"A close and microscopic examination of the private lives of public men is a natural consequence of holding public offices. Thus, what is true for a private citizen, who does not come within the public gaze, may not be true of a person holding 'public office'. Though scrutiny of public figures by media of all kinds, should not reach a stage where it would amount to harassment of the 'public figures' and their family members, but 'public gaze' is a necessary corollary of their holding public offices."
Reliance was placed on Khushwant Singh & Another vs. Maneka Gandhi, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1030.
Moving further, the Court discussed the nature of the impugned tweets and noted that Gupta had sought to justify his tweets on the basis of public records.
It was of the opinion that the tone and tenor of the tweets would show that Gupta being a 'public figure' was relentlessly pursuing the Government in respect of the purchase of and grant of an AMC for 1000 buses, in which the independent Committee, constituted by Lt. Governor of Delhi, had also found irregularities and had recommended its cancellation.
"Thus, it is difficult to accept that these tweets were personally targeted against the plaintiff alone and were per se defamatory and were totally false on the face of it. Had these accusations been absolutely false, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor would not have constituted a committee. Moreover, the CBI has also initiated a preliminary inquiry. The Delhi Government, through the plaintiff, has kept the purchase and maintenance orders on hold, stating no reason. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Committee report and the CBI inquiry may have had some effect on this decision of the Government. It would, no doubt be upon the defendant No.1 to actually prove justification during trial. But on the material placed on the record, there is nothing on which basis the tweets can be treated as blatant lies and hence defamatory," it said.
The Court further made it clear that it cannot pass an order restraining future publications.
"Remedy for the person, who fears that he would be defamed would arise only after the publication and would be governed by the principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court. On a probability that a publication could defame a person, there is no right to seek a prior restraint," the Single Judge observed relying on R Rajagopal & Another v. State of TN & others, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
Finally, the Court noted that Gahlot has sought damages of Rs. 5 crores from Gupta for causing loss of reputation to him. In other words, compensation in monetary terms has been quantified and the absence of an interim injunction would not cause injury that could not be compensated by grant of damages, in the event, Gupta fails to justify his tweets.
Accordingly, the relief of temporary injunction was denied.
Senior Counsel Manish Vashisht, appearing on behalf of Gahlot, submitted that the allegations were prima-facie malicious and only meant to defame him, to bring down his standing and to compromise his credibility before his constituency members.