Delhi HC nixes Tehelka’s review plea against order asking it to pay Rs 2 crore to former Army officer for ‘defamation’

In March 2001, Tehelka.com carried a news story about alleged corruption in defence deals allegedly involving Ahluwalia in relation to the import of new equipment.

A sting operation was carried out and recorded by reporters Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel who posed as representatives of a fictitious defence equipment firm based in London’s West End keen to introduce new defence equipment in the Indian Army. The sting operation, which showed Army officers, other civilian officers working in the Ministry of Defence and politicians allegedly involved in corruption in defence deals, was aired by Zee TV.

The high court had in its July 21 order noted that Ahluwalia had lived with “ill fame for more than 23 years”, and said, “The reputation of the plaintiff has suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal… Considering the enormity of the nature of defamation, apology at this stage is not only inadequate but is meaningless”.

Seeking a review of this order, the magazine and Bahal told the high court that Ahluwalia did not tender any evidence or place on record the video clip of the sting operation as aired by Zee Telefilms. They claimed that the sting operation was genuine and these very recordings became a basis for the prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against many officers and action by the Army.

On this point, Justice Krishna said that the “authenticity of the sting operation or of the conversations recorded” of Ahluwalia, was not under challenge.

“The fact remains that in the present case, respondent No. 1/plaintiff (Ahluwalia) was exonerated by the Army Court of Inquiry and was only awarded with ‘severe displeasure’ on account of his conduct which was found to be unbecoming of an Army officer and not because of acceptance of any money as was implied in the “Editorial Comments”. This aspect also finds mention in the impugned judgment. As already observed, the entire case of respondent No.1 (Ahluwalia) did not rest on the authenticity of the sting operation, but only on the “Editorial Comments” inserted by defendant No.3/ applicant No.2 (Bahal) to the transcript of recording prepared thereafter,” the high court said, dismissing the review.

A reference was also made to a Supreme Court judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India wherein the apex court had observed that the “right to free speech was held to be not meaning that a citizen can defame others. Protection of reputation was also held to be a human and fundamental right, serving a social interest. To constitute the offence of defamation, it was held that there must not only be an imputation but it must have been made with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made”.