2017 (3) TMI 1341 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the High Court - Defamatory newspaper article - Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing and reporting any Article/news of defamation - Held that - this suit does not deserve to be entertained and deserves to be thrown out at the threshold to save the defendants, who do not appear to be persons with much monetary means, from travelling to Delhi, engaging an Advocate, appearing and contesting this suit at Delhi. This Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court as the defendants are not stated to be selling their newspaper at Delhi and their website is not interactive and the article concerned is in Bengali language with which very few Delhiites would be conversant with and the plaintiff has not pleaded that any one at Delhi understood the said article but I refrain from returning a final finding on the said aspect being of the view that the suit of the plaintiff is otherwise not maintainable.

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration regarding the publication of an article.
2. Permanent injunction against publishing similar articles.
3. Recovery of damages for defamation.
4. Maintainability of the suit.
5. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration Regarding the Publication of an Article:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the publication of an article in the newspaper "Dainik Samayik Prasanga" dated 21st November 2016 was contrary to the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) and defamatory. The plaintiff, an approved "Training Partner" under PMKVY, alleged that the article falsely reported the misappropriation of training funds, thereby defaming the plaintiff and damaging its reputation. The court noted that the plaintiff had not provided the complaint filed by defendant no.7 or the FIR registered thereon, and it was not disputed that the article accurately reported the contents of the complaint and FIR.

2. Permanent Injunction Against Publishing Similar Articles:
The plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing and reporting any articles similar to the one in question. The court observed that the defendants, in their role as journalists, had merely reported the filing of a complaint and the registration of an FIR, which are news events. The court held that such reporting is a public right and cannot be curtailed, as it constitutes news that the public has a right to know. The court emphasized that the reporting of legal proceedings and FIRs is protected under the principle of freedom of speech and expression.

3. Recovery of Damages for Defamation:
The plaintiff claimed damages of ?1,00,00,000 for defamation, arguing that the article was false and defamatory. The court, however, found that the defendants were protected by absolute privilege, as they had reported on judicial proceedings and the contents of an FIR. The court cited several precedents establishing that statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, including FIRs, are privileged and do not constitute defamation. The court also noted that the remedy for false complaints lies in actions for malicious prosecution, not defamation.

4. Maintainability of the Suit:
The court questioned the maintainability of the suit, noting that the plaintiff had filed the suit in Delhi despite the events and defendants being located in Assam. The court suggested that the suit appeared to be an attempt to stifle the defendants and coerce defendant no.7 to withdraw her complaint. The court referenced the principle of forum convenience, which discourages the filing of suits in inconvenient jurisdictions to harass defendants.

5. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court also addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction, noting that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The court observed that the defendants' newspaper was not circulated in Delhi, and the article was in Bengali, a language not widely understood in Delhi. The court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, finding it not maintainable and lacking territorial jurisdiction. The court emphasized the protection of journalistic reporting of judicial proceedings and the principle of absolute privilege in defamation cases related to FIRs and complaints. The court's decision aimed to prevent the misuse of legal processes to harass defendants and uphold the principles of freedom of speech and fair reporting.

← Previous Next →