Court clears doctors of defamation over remarks made in ‘Satyamev Jayate’ episode

“The context of the statements made by the Applicants was only to spread awareness about grossly visible and mostly fatal malformation and high incidence of defects noticed through studies which were conducted… Both Applicants have not made any mention whether direct or indirect about the use of any particular pesticide or insecticide as being teratogenic or being responsible for any birth defects or deformities, neither have they mentioned or taken the name of any manufacturer or producer of insecticides or pesticides in a negative or defamatory manner,” the August 18 order said.

The case originated from the June 24, 2012 episode of Satyamev Jayate, titled “Toxic Food – Poison in our Plate”. Dr Sanghi spoke for about 40 seconds, while Dr Kabra spoke for around three to four minutes while answering questions from the anchor. The programme also featured other experts and public figures who discussed pesticide use, regulatory issues, organic farming and alternative methods of farming.

According to Justice Milind N Jadhav, both doctors had done substantial research and had much experience in their respective fields.

Doctors’ research

According to the high court, both doctors had substantial research and experience in their respective fields. Dr Sanghi had published a research paper titled “Organochlorine and Organophosphorus pesticide residues in breast milk from Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India” in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology in February 2003. The paper dealt with the presence of environmental and occupational contaminants in breast milk.

Dr Kabra, meanwhile, had conducted and supervised research concerning stillbirths and congenital anomalies. The order says his research examined environmental factors that could operate during the early stages of pregnancy.

The complainant, Crop Care Federation of India Limited, was described as a non-profit organisation whose members are manufacturers and marketers of pesticides and insecticides. It objected to views aired during the programme concerning toxic food and statements about fruits and vegetables having abnormally high levels of pesticide residues, alleging that the remarks amounted to false and malicious claims that portrayed pesticide use as harmful. The complaint was filed in March 2015, nearly three years after the programme was telecast.

The court was also critical of the October 3, 2016 order by which the magistrate had issued process. The high court said the order was “sans reasons” and simply recorded that the remarks were highly defamatory to manufacturers and marketers in India before issuing process.

“This reason in itself reflects complete non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate and hence such an order can never be sustained and countenanced at all,” Justice Jadhav said. The court also considered an April 22, 2013 order of the ‘Broadcasting Content Complaints Council’ concerning the same programme. The council, according to the high court’s order, had found nothing objectionable in the broadcast.