Delhi High Court Rejects IFS Mahaveer Singhvi's Defamation Suits Against Hindustan Times

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed two defamation suits filed by 1999 batch IFS Mahaveer Singhvi against Hindustan Times newspaper, both English and Hindi editions, over two news reports published in 2002.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the suits and observed that the articles published in the two newspapers were not per se defamatory.

“Balancing the right of information of the public with the duty of the Media of truthful reporting and the individual right of protection of his reputation, it is held that the Articles which are the subject matter of the two suits, are not per se defamatory,” the court said.

Singhvi filed the suits in 2007 seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores each for loss of his reputation.

In the first suit, Singhvi was aggrieved by an article published in Hindustan Times (english version) on July 19, 2002, titled “IFS Probationer Sacked After Tapes Prove Misconduct.” The said suit was also filed against Vir Sanghvi and Saurabh Shukla, the then Editor and the correspondent respectively.

The second suit was filed against Hindustan newspaper (Hindi version) and Mrinal Pandey and Rakesh Kumar Singh, the then Editor and Reporter. Singhvi was aggrieved by the article published on July 21, 2002 titled “shadi se inkar karne par adhikari ne yuvti ka jeena haram kiya.”

It was Singhvi's case that the Articles were in gross violation of the norms of journalistic conduct issued by Press Council of India.

He submitted there was not even an iota of truth in the facts mentioned in the publications with respect to the conversation with a woman on tape and the alleged abusive and expletive language used by him.

He contended that such conversation never took place with any woman at any point of time despite which the two newspapers published “defamatory facts” against him with ulterior motive of defaming him in public.

Dismissing the suits, the court held that in today's free world, freedom of Press is the heart of social and political intercourse.

“The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society,” the court said.

It added the purpose of the Press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments.

On the news article published in the english daily, Justice Krishna said that it was a neutral reporting of an incident wherein it was reported that there was a Tape concerning Singhvi, containing obnoxious language received in the office of MEA and while the enquiry was being conducted, the Minister took the call of discharging him without any enquiry because he was a Probationary Officer.

“From the entire Article, it cannot be inferred that there were any malicious false allegations or conduct attributed to the plaintiff. Rather, the truth of initiation of an enquiry and during its pendency, discharge of the plaintiff while on Probation, is not in dispute. That a Tape containing obnoxious conversation of a woman, is also not disputed. No other facts have been mentioned in the Newspaper Article. It is evident that the reporting was a fair comment, based on their sources and was not defamatory,” the court said.

Regarding the second article published in the Hindi daily, the court observed the information was based on verified sources, noting that all which had transpired in the Union Ministry had ultimately led to the discharge of Singhvi.

“It may be thus, concluded that the Newspaper Articles have in the neutral/truthful manner have simply reported the news on the basis of the information collected from the verified sources,” the court said.

It added that the reporting was not malicious and made in good faith and that the newspapers had merely discharged their duty of bringing news in public domain of which the public at large, has a right to information.

Title: MAHAVEER SINGHVI v. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 726

Click here to read order