Observing that the freedom of press “will have to be balanced against the right which an individual has to his reputation”, the Bombay High Court directed a journalist to take down social media posts, which were prima facie found “defamatory”, after a businessman filed a defamation suit against him. The court observed that the journalist was not indulging in investigative journalism in the interest of the public and said that same does not enjoy any special protection. “The freedom of press, which is being evolved as a species of speech, definitely will have to be balanced against a right, which an individual has to his reputation,” the bench said. The court passed an interim order granting injunction and directed the journalist to remove various “prima facie defamatory” posts from social media platforms. “Investigative journalism definitely does not enjoy any special protection and the umbrage of public interest definitely does not permit a publication, which would amount to lowering down the reputation of any person , in any manner particularly without justifying the publication on the basis of its truthfulness,” the bench added. A single-judge bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre earlier this month in plea by one Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar, a gold trader trading in India and Dubai against “defamatory” social media posts containing videos and interviews by journalist Waahiid Ali Khan seeking Rs 100 crore compensation and damages. Pending hearing of the suit, Thakkar, through advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, sought interim relief of removal of the said posts levelling “baseless” allegations against him. The court noted that Thakkar was named as one of the 31 accused in an FIR registered by Matunga Police station pertaining to a gambling case. Khan, through advocate Rizwan Merchant, claimed that he had run impugned stories taking FIR as a basis since “distribution of information in the public interest was his fundamental duty” and posts were aimed at raising awareness about potential scams. However, the bench observed that Khan failed to provide material supporting his allegations and has “not offered single justification of truth”. It said that the matter projected “classic case of investive journalism, where under the guise of bringing truth before the public at large, what is attempted is publication of false, derogatory and misleading information.” Justice Dangre noted that “feeble attempt” was made by the defendant that he had no intention to defame or harm Thakkar's reputation while putting the said content in public domain. “What the defendant Khan is attempting is investigative journalism, which is definitely not in the interest of general public at large. As a journalist, though he may be duty bound to appraise the public, of the facts and data which is in their interest, it definitely cannot be attempted at the cost of defaming the plaintiff,” the court said.
