Supreme Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Former MANUU Chancellor, Asks Him To Pay Rs1 Lac To Complainant & Publish Apology

The Supreme Court on October 14 quashed the criminal defamation case against former Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Firoz Bakht Ahmed, and directed him to publish an unconditional apology in "bold letters" in first page of local daily newspaper in connection with the “sexual predator” remark he made against Dean of the School of Mass Communication and Journalism of the MANUU, Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan.

The Court has ordered Firoz Bakht to pay 1 lac token damages for the "mental agony" caused to Professor Ehtesham on account of "wild allegations" within 4 weeks.

Reportedly, in 2018, Firoz Bakht had written to the then Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Prakash Javadekar, calling Professor Ehtesham Ahmad a sexual predator in connection with allegations of "sexual harassment and humiliation" of two female students at the university.

Profession Ehtesham has filed a case for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against Firoz Bakht, alleging that the remarks were made even though the University's Internal Complaints Committee did not find any evidence against him.

On the last occasion, a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and V.K. Vishwanathan had heard a petition filed by Firoz Bakht against the order of the Telangana High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated by Professor Ehtesham in connection with these remarks.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija submitted that the petitioner has rendered an unconditional apology on September 19 and as per the last proceedings, they are ready to even publish it in the newspaper. She informed the court that the statements were made "emotionally".

Makhija said: "We are withdrawing the statements."

She added that the respondent is seeking 16 lac as damages.

However, advocate Balaji Srinivasan (for respondent) pointed out that the damages are sought based on the ongoing defamation proceedings. He added that the apology does not appear to be unconditional.

At the outset, a bench of Justices Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra were not willing to settle the matter between parties. Justice Gavai said: "If you have made a statement, then face the proceedings."

Advocate Makhija clarified that the statements were made in the context of the sexual harassment proceedings against two university students. She added that the respondent was not acquitted as there is no documentation to that effect.

To this, Justice Gavai added: "Then, you have a defence of truth...Dismissed. Before making such averments, you should think twice. Calling someone as sexual predator...When you do something knowingly, then you should be willing to face the consequences."

On this, Makhija responded that the petitioner was willing to pay damages.

While stating that the order of the High Court need not be interfered with on merits but considering the willingness of the petitioner to enter into a settlement, the Court quashed all proceedings and directed him to pay damages. While ascertaining the damages, it considered the petitioner's financial restraints.

Case Details: FIROZ BAKHT AHMED Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, SLP(Crl) No. 9236/2024

Appearances: Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija (for petitioner) assisted by Mr. Siddharth Kumar, Adv and Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR for the Petitioner and advocate Balaji Srinivasan (for respondent).

Click Here To Read/Download Order