Delhi High Court Dismisses Tehelka’s Review Against Order Directing It To Pay ₹2 Crore Damages To Former Army Officer For Defamation

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by news magazine Tehelka and its co-founder Aniruddha Bahal seeking review of an order directing them to pay Rs. 2 crores damages to a former Army officer Major General MS Ahluwalia in a defamation suit filed by the latter in 2002.

“There is no error apparent on the face of record nor has the applicants been able to highlight any error or mistake which can be corrected within the ambit of review,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

A story was carried by Tehelka in March 2001 depicting Ahluwalia as an alleged corrupt middleman in the defence deals relating to import of new defence equipments.

On July 21, Justice Krishna had directed the Tehelka, Bahal, the magazine’s former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal and a journalist Mathew Samuel to pay Rs. 2 crores to Ahluwalia for defaming him.

The court had observed that Ahluwalia’s reputation had suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption, which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal.

Seeking review of the said order, the magazine and its co-founder told court that Ahluwalia did not tender any evidence or place on record the video clip of the sting operation as aired by Zee Telefilms. It was also submitted that Ahluwalia did not prove the copies of the transcript of the sting operation and that the suit should have been dismissed for failure to prove or certify the broadcast and the transcript.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Ahluwalia opposed the claims and submitted that there was no error with the judgment which was amenable to correction.

While dismissing the review plea, the court noted that the authenticity of the sting operation or of the recorded conversations of Ahluwalia was not under challenge.

Further, a reference was made to the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) wherein it was observed that Right to free speech doesn't mean that a citizen can defame others; protection of reputation is also a human and fundamental right.

“Though, this judgment itself does not find mention in the impugned Judgment, the principle narrated therein has been discussed and covered in paragraph 114 and 115 of the impugned judgment. It has been observed that the publication would be defamatory if not made in “good faith for the cause of public good”. It has also been noted that a “fair comment” cannot justify a statement which is untrue,” the court said.

In her ruling, Justice Krishna held Tehelka, Tejpal and the two journalists, who allegedly worked as undercover by representing themselves on behalf of a fictitious defence equipment firm based in London, liable for defamation.

The court however said that Ahluwalia failed to prove any act of defamation on the part of Zee Telefilm Limited, its former Chairman Subhash Chandra and former Chief Executive Officer Sandeep Goyal.

Advocates Chetan Anand, Akash Srivastava and Tejaswini appeared for the plaintiff.

Senior Advocate Meet Malhotra and Advocates Vivesh B. Saharya and Akshat Agarwal appeared for review petitioner.

Advocate Petal Chandhok represented Zee Telefilms.

Case Title: MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA v. M/S TEHELKA.COM & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 837