1910 (3) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Defamation per se
2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest
3. Political defamation and damages
4. Admissibility and relevance of parliamentary statements
5. Assessment of damages

Detailed Analysis:

1. Defamation per se:
The primary issue was whether the words referring to the plaintiff were defamatory per se and if they alleged the commission of a criminal offense. The court concluded that the statement "Lajpat Rai has been guilty of tampering with the loyalty of the Punjabi sepoys" would be understood by a reasonable person as implying that Lajpat Rai attempted to seduce soldiers from their duty, constituting an offense under Sections 124A and 131 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable by transportation for life. This imputation was not considered fair comment but a false statement of fact.

2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest:
The defendants argued that their statements were fair comments on a matter of public interest, relying on statements made in Parliament. However, the court held that while fair comment on public interest matters is not libel, the defendants went beyond fair comment by asserting that the plaintiff had committed a criminal offense. Since the plea of justification was withdrawn, the statements were presumed untrue, making the defendants liable for damages.

3. Political defamation and damages:
The defendants contended that the alleged libel only defamed the plaintiff politically and that damages should be nominal since the plaintiff had no political reputation to lose after deportation. The court disagreed, stating that the plaintiff's involvement in political agitation and his deportation should be considered in assessing damages. The plaintiff's reputation, particularly his role in inflaming public sentiment against the government, was relevant to the extent of damages awarded.

4. Admissibility and relevance of parliamentary statements:
The defendants argued that they were entitled to rely on statements made in Parliament. The court acknowledged that a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings is privileged. However, the article did not purport to be a report of parliamentary proceedings but presented the statements as the writer's own assertions. The court held that republishing defamatory statements from a privileged occasion as one's own statements is not protected by privilege.

5. Assessment of damages:
The court found that the damages awarded were excessive. While the plaintiff's deportation and involvement in political agitation were factors, the defendants' continued assertion of the truth of the libel, even after withdrawing the plea of justification, aggravated the damages. The court reduced the damages from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,500, considering the plaintiff's political activities and the context of the libel.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded that the article contained an imputation of a criminal offense against the plaintiff, which was not protected as fair comment. The defendants were liable for damages, but the amount was reduced due to the plaintiff's political activities and the context of the defamation. The court also addressed the admissibility of parliamentary statements, emphasizing that republishing such statements as one's own assertions is not privileged. The final award of damages was Rs. 1,500, with the respondent entitled to the costs of the appeal.