Is Caravan's Article On Arindam Chaudhuri Defamatory? Delhi High Court To Decide In Suit Filed By IIPM Against Delhi Press In 2011

The Delhi High Court has framed issues for adjudication in the suit filed by Indian Institute of Planning and Management in 2011 against the publisher, printer and editors of The Caravan in connection with an article published by the magazine on Arindam Chaudhari in 2011.

Justice Amit Bansal framed three questions for final decision in the case:

• Whether the impugned article "Sweet Smell of Success – How Anindam Chaudhuri made a fortune off the aspirations and insecurities of India's middle classes" published in the magazine "The Caravan" in February, 2011 is defamatory towards the plaintiff?
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed in the suit?
• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants for publishing the aforesaid article?

The court directed the parties to file their list of witnesses within six weeks. The plaintiff has also been directed to file its evidence by way of affidavit within six weeks.

"List before the Joint Registrar for fixing dates of trial on 12th January, 2023," the court said in the order dated November 15.

The suit had been earlier filed before a civil judge in Assam's Silchar. On April 12 in 2011, the court had passed an injunction order in the case. In August 2015, the Supreme Court transferred the case to Delhi High Court, while allowing a transfer petition. The high court in 2018 vacated the injunction order of Assam court.

According to the plaintiffs, the magazine carried a morphed image of Chaudhari, the then Dean of Centre for Advanced Studies of IIPM, showing "him as a magician/soothsayer with intent to portray him as trickster". It has been contended that the article falsely imputes that he has the reputation of being "fraud, scamster and Johnny-cum-lately". The article allegedly contained derogatory comments against Chaudhari and IIPM with an "intent to create a negative image" about them in public.

The defendants - Delhi Press and the managing editor, editor, publisher and printer of the magazine, in response have previously argued before the court that none of the impugned statements have been made recklessly or without proper research. The defendants in their response have invoked the defence of "justification/truthfulness".

While vacating the injunction order against the article in 2018, the high court had taken note of a press note issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as per which the IIPM was one of the 21 universities declared to be fake by the University Grants Commission.

"This Court in the present case is of the prima facie view that the defendants have highlighted the evidence which is relevant and material on a matter of substantial importance and there is no material at this stage to conclude that the stories have been published by the defendants with a reckless disregard for truth or precipitated by actual malice or that the defence of justification/truthfulness/fair comment is one that cannot succeed," Justice Manmohan had said in the order dated February 16, 2018.

A division bench headed by then Chief Justice Rajendra Menon had dismissed an appeal against the order passed by Justice Manmohan.

"We have gone through the detail order passed by the learned Single Judge, the facts narrated in the plaint, the article and the defence of the respondents and we find that after considering there to be a prima facie material to uphold the contention of the defendants that truth or correctness of the statement is their defence, the injunction has been vacated," the division bench said in the decision dated November 27, 2018.

Title: THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT vs DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN P. LTD. ANR

Click Here To Read/Download