Delhi court orders Hindustan Times, Neelesh Misra to pay ₹40 lakh to businessman for defamation

A Delhi court recently ordered Hindustan Times and its former reporter Neelesh Misra to pay ₹40 lakh in damages to a businessman over a 2007 news report stating that he was "sacked" from a company "for alleged financial irregularities" [Arun Kumar Gupta v. HT Media Limited & Ors]..District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur ordered the newspaper to pay 3/4th of the amount while Misra was directed to pay the rest of the compensation to Arun Kumar Gupta, the founder of Darts IT Network.The Court also ordered the newspaper to publish an apology within 60 days. Further, it permanently restrained the publication from defaming Gupta..Gupta had joined a company called Integrix as Director in 2000 and resigned in July 2005 to start his own company. In March and April 2006, Integrix filed two suits over a defamatory email and hacking of its website. On orders of the Delhi High Court, it was later revealed that the IP address linked to the email and hacking could be traced to Gupta.In January 2007, Hindustan Times published a news report written by Misra. Without naming Gupta, it stated that he had been sacked for financial irregularities. Gupta sued the paper, Misra, Integrix, its directors and even its lawyer for defamation. He later settled the case with all, except Hindustan Times and Misra. In their response, they said that the article was written on the basis of credible information received from sources and corroborated by various documents including copies of suits filed by Integrix against Gupta.It was also argued that Gupta was not the subject matter of the story but it was about the legal status of electronic mails. The same was published in public interest, the Court was told..The Court at the outset noted that Gupta had settled the suit with Integrix and others as well as the suits filed against him by the company. Thus, the Court said that Gupta had lost the right to contend that the allegations in the suits against him were false. It also rejected the objection against reporting of a pending suit, observing that the media has a constitutional right to report even pending matters.However, the Court found there was nothing on record to suggest that Gupta had been sacked for financial irregularities.“I have perused pleadings as well as ordersheet of both suit no. I and II. Surprisingly, in both the plaints, defendant no. 2 [Integrix] company had categorically stated that “plaintiff herein had resigned from the company and there were no allegations of financial irregularities against the plaintiff herein nor it was mentioned that plaintiff was sacked /removed as stated in the impugned article. Further, from the perusal of record of suit no. I and II it is clear that till the publication of impugned article on 29.01.2007, there was nothing on record in the judicial record of both suits alleging any financial irregularities committed by the plaintiff herein while he was a director in the defendant no. 2 company.”.The Court noted that the newspaper and Misra did not disclose the exact source of information, nor had they filed any document to support their claim that Gupta was sacked for alleged financial irregularities. On the argument that Gupta was not named in the article, the Court said that all the witnesses examined by him admitted that they were aware about the court cases and they could co-relate the report to him. The moment witnesses questioned Gupta on the basis of averments made in the article, the damage had been caused to his reputation, it addedThe Court also rejected the newspaper’s defence of fair comment and said,“Reporting in the article that plaintiff was sacked for alleged financial irregularities without any substance or material to give that opinion, is equivalent to character assassination for which no benefit can be given to the defendant no. 1 and 7.”.Further, the Court refused to accept the argument that there was no malice involved in the reporting. It thus found Hindustan Times and Misra guilty of defamation. Consequently, Gupta was found entitled to damages of ₹40 lakh, as against his claim of ₹1 Crore.“Plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs. 40 lacs. Defendant no. 1 will pay 3/4th amount of the compensation to plaintiff and defendant no. 7 will pay 1/4th amount of compensation to the plaintiff,” the Court ordered.On why it did not hold Misra and Hindustan Time equally liable, the Court said that Misra might have reported the matter carelessly but the newspaper had a higher responsibility. “An institution is always bigger than an individual person and as is said “higher the power, higher the responsibility”. A big institution like defendant no. 1 is supposed to have a check upon the reports/news articles prepared by an individual reporter. The institution has higher accountability because institution generally has many check posts, many barriers before the matter is reported or a task is completed.".Arun Kumar Gupta appeared in personAdvocates Sanjeev Behl, Madhur Dhingra and Kunal Rai represented Hindustan Times and Misra..[Read Judgment]