Delhi HC rejects 17-year-old defamation case against Hindustan Times by IFS officer

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has rejected defamation suits filed against the Hindustan Times newspaper, its Hindi daily Hindustan, former editors Vir Sanghvi and Mrinal Pandey and two reporters, by Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer Mahaveer Singhvi, in a 17-year-old case.

The Court rejected the suit holding that the 3 articles in question in the case were not per se defamatory.

It opined that the facts mentioned in the newspaper articles were basis information collected from verified sources.

From the entire Article, it cannot be inferred that there were any malicious false allegations or conduct attributed to the plaintiff. Rather, the truth of initiation of an enquiry and during its pendency, discharge of the plaintiff while on Probation, is not in dispute. That a Tape containing obnoxious conversation of a woman, is also not disputed. No other facts have been mentioned in the Newspaper Article. It is evident that the reporting was a fair comment, based on their sources and was not defamatory, the Court held.

It also noted that on balancing the public's right to information and the media's duty of truthful reporting with the Officer's right to protect his reputation, it did not seem that the articles were defamatory.

The judgment was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Neena Krishna Bansal.

A 1999 batch IFS officer, Singhvi who was terminated from services for alleged misconduct had sued the newspapers, as well as editors Sanghvi, Pandey, and reporters Saurabh Shukla and Rakesh Kumar Singh for 3 articles published by the newspapers under the Hindustan Times banner in 2002.

Singhvi filed for defamation 5 years later. In 2008, the decision to terminate him was overturned, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision in 2010.

The articles alleged that Singhvi was sacked on the basis of tapes proving misconduct by him, and that he had harassed a woman who rejected his marriage proposal.

Challenging the articles, Singhvi argued that they were against norms of ethical journalistic conduct, with no iota of truth in them.

He further denied the veracity of the tapes, which the articles referred to, stating that the conversation never happened.

The articles referred to an alleged conversation where he used expletives against the concerned woman.

Responding to Singhvi's grievance against the woman, the Court noted that while that may be genuine, he was already availing of an independent remedy against her.

The Court added that the Officer had already regained his honour by fighting for his truth and getting his job reinstated by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It said, "Reputation is what one builds over a period of time by his conduct and work. The entire incident may have left the plaintiff completely shattered and distraught, but it is his conviction in his truthfulness that gave him the courage to stand for his rights and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to win back his honour by reinstatement in his job," the Court added.

Cause Title: Mahaveer Singhvi v Hindustan Times Limited & Ors.