AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This suit is for damages against the defendants. Plaintiff-company is carrying on business manufacturing various chemicals
such as caustic soda, chlorine etc. It is known as Chemfab Group of Companies who are pioneers in the field of Anode manufacturing and leading
suppliers of Electro Chemical accessories in India. The plaintiff put up its factory for manufacture of caustic soda at the backward area of Kalapet
in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. At much risk and expenses, the factory was put up on a totally barren area. The plaintiff has also received
subsidies from the Central Government as well as the State Government for putting up industry. The manufacture of caustic soda involves the
process of electrolysis by which the caustic soda and chlorine are produced. The plaintiff was developing a patent design of Central Electro
Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi and is using Titanium Substrate Insoluble Anodes thereby the pollution hazard has considerably reduced
compared to mercury-coated anodes. Recently, they developed a method whereby they use Membrane Cell Technology which is a revolutionary
concept in the Chlor Alkhali Industry particularly from the point of view of pollution control and energy conservation. They are the first caustic
soda manufacturing company using this technology. Appreciating the plaintiffs strive towards the environmental and pollution control by using the
latest technology, it was awarded the prestigious F.I.C.C.I. Award for outstanding contribution to the Environmental pollution control in the year
1989. Even the original U.S.A. Company which developed that technology gave a citation to the plaintiff for the successful operation of the Chloro
Alkhalis Plant. Subsequently, many citations were made by various authorities. The plaintiff started the factory only after various authorities
involved in the environmental preservation and pollution control had inspected the site and reports given by them. Further, Directorate General for
Technology Development (D.G.T.D.) had granted the plaintiff a letter of indent to put up a factory for caustic soda production outlining the various
measures to be adopted by the plaintiff in the utilisation of the Chlorine Gas. The plaintiff-factory is operating to the satisfaction of the Pollution
Control authorities. The effluent control and environmental protection measures adopted by the petitioner are more than the exacting standards laid
down by the statutory authorities.
While so, the University of Pondicherry put up Srinivasa Ramanujam Academic Complex close to the plaintiff''s factory. The staff and members
of the Pondicherry University have apparently complained to the Vice-Chancellor that there were some air and water pollution caused by the
chemical factories in the neighbourhood. In that, the factory was not mentioned; that was also published in various newspapers, viz., in ""The Hindu
dated 18.2.1990, 20.2.1990 and 22.2.1990 in ""Malai Malar"" dated 20.2.1990 and in ""News Today"" dated 21.2.1990. In none of the press
release, the name of the plaintiff was mentioned specifically. In order to maintain good relation with the neighbourhood, the plaintiff wrote on
17.2.1990 to the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor of the Pondicherry University that various pollution control efforts have been undertaken by
the plaintiff; it also invited the representatives of the Universities to inspect the plaintiffs premises in order to satisfy themselves. Thereafter, the
University stopped making any further complaints against the plaintiff.
While so, on 20th February, 1990, one Mr. Ganapathy Subramaniam claimed to be an engineering student from the Pondicherry University and
also claiming to be a reporter for Junior Vikatan sought an interview with the President of the plaintiff company, Mr. S.E. Manohar. In the
interview, the said Mr. S.E. Manohar explained the various pollution control methods adopted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff''s President clearly and
specifically brought to the notice of the reporter that the plaintiffs company was not causing any pollution as was evident from the greenery
surrounding in the plaintiffs factory. The Manager also brought to the notice of the reporter that there was no water pollution and the company''s
own employees numbering a few hundred were living in the same premises and had not experienced any problems. But the plaintiff was shocked to
see the first issue of March, 1990 of the ""Junior Vikatan"" published by the second defendant in which the cover page contained the photograph of
the plaintiffs caustic soda factory clearly showing the plaintiffs name with red skull and cross bones superimposed with the caption underneath,
Poison Gas Danger"" and ""Villagers are trembling"". The inside story contained at page 16 in no uncertain terms categorises the plaintiff''s factory as
a major pollution hazard in the locality and indeed the cover photograph itself is self-explanatory. It also referred to the influence used by the
industrial Family of Birla as if the plaintiff-company was connected with the Birla family. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the Birla Group of
companies. The general tenor of the allegations in the article give no room for doubt in the minds of the people except to conclude that the plaintiff
was a major environmental hazard at Kalapet. Even the box column, containing excerpts of interview with the plaintiffs President, was falsely
reported and none of the denials made by the company were given due prominence. On the other hand, the article seeks to influence the mind of
the reader as if the plaintiff-company was an environmental hazard.
Therefore, the plaintiff on 6.3.1990 issued a lawyer''s notice calling upon the defendant to withdraw the allegation in the next issue and to give
some publicity failing which, they would sue for damages for defamation. The plaintiff received a reply from the defendants signed by the first
defendant stating that the article in the magazine contained only matters gathered personally by their reporters at Kalapet. The defendants denied
that the article contained false, frivolous, imaginary details and further submitted that the same had been published in good faith and without
negligence. The defendants further stated that they had no intention to defame the plaintiff-company.
The plaintiff states that the defendant has been totally negligent in publishing the article in question without taking care to ascertain from the
Pollution Control authorities whether the factory is indeed an environmental hazard, containing meaningless interviews with the students or other
laymen in the locality which cannot be construed that the publication Vas made in good faith. The entire publication amounts to negligent reporting
and the entire publication is mala fide. By putting its photograph in the cover page with the caption, ""Poison Gas Danger"" it was only with the
intention of maligning the name of the plaintiff; It was apparently with cheap sensationalism by the magazine. The magazine is extensively circulated
all over Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and also in other parts of the country and even abroad. Inspector of Factories and the Central Pollution
Control Board have not framed any charges of pollution and in fact the Pollution Control Board in recognition of company''s performance has
given rebate on water cess payable by the company. This is an acknowledgment and recognition of company''s adhering to Pollution Control
Board norms. The goodwill, name and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiff in the industry has been greatly prejudiced by the publication. The plaintiff
received innumerable enquiries both in writing and through phone from various people including many of its shareholders seeking the veracity of the
allegation. This publication has adversely affected the plaintiff''s sister concern. The damage caused to the plaintiffs reputation and goodwill is
estimated at Rs. 15 lakhs. Therefore, the suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs for damages and also for permanent injunction from
making any defamatory allegation against the plaintiff as well as for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to publish and carry out a
retraction of the defamatory allegation contained in the issue dated 7.3.1990.
In the written statement, the defendants have stated as follows:
Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The plaint does not show any particulars of damage. It is devoid of such particulars. The suit has been
filed for collateral purposes of screening against the complaints of environmental pollution. The first defendant is a responsible publication in the
field of championing the Cause of public and projecting public grievances wherever needed with a view to bring to the notice of the concerned
authorities so that they will take remedial steps. The facts referred to in the publication are true and based on the information which the defendants
had reasons to believe as true. The defendants are running the journal and publishing articles after due investigation and are making fair comments
about the existing facts in public interest. The defendants have a duty to the public who are mostly illiterate masses and whose rights have to be
safeguarded. For the purpose of impressing upon and attracting the attention of the concerned authorities against violation of any rules which will
create ecological imbalance and lead to high rate of pollution and with a view to avoid another tragedy that struck Bhopal, these defendants
through their own agency verified the facts by interviewing number of people as well as the authorities before publishing articles in question. The
article in question was only a fair comment and in the public interest. The article mainly contained the allegations made by other agencies and the
article was published purely in good faith and public interest. If it is read properly and in a proper prespective, it will reveal the true significance and
meaning and the article was not published on account of any recklessness or malice and it is not indicative of want of due care and caution. This
article was published as a matter of opinion out of good faith and for the public good, only after taking due care and adequate caution. By no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that it was for the purpose of bringing down the plaintiffs fame and name. Various High Courts and the
Supreme Court have exercised their power for the prevention of pollution of air and water and have been periodically issuing directions. Even the
educational institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University was asked to shift their ""Gamma Chamber"" to some other place. The Courts also directed
closing of several industrial units in public interest due to water and air pollution. It is the duty of any journal catering to the public cause to bring
even stray incidents to the public and also the officers to maintain ecological balance. It is not done with the intention of injuring the reputation of
the plaintiff; absolutely there was no malice. The pollution in the area has affected the health, life and ecology of the locality and effective steps are
to be taken to control the pollution, it was necessary to enable the public to know what was happening. Under the circumstances, the defendants
thought it fit to bring it to the notice and attention of the authorities, so that it can remove the pollution in the areas. This suit has been instituted only
for the purpose of preventing a section of the Press from acting in a over vigilant manner. The weekly magazine, ""Junior Vikatan"" published the
article in question with a caption, ""Visha Vayu Bayangaram"" based on the materials gathered personally by the reporters of the second defendant in
and around Kalapet and also from several other persons affected due to pollution caused by the chemical industries in that area. The public at large
complaining about the menacing health hazards they were facing due to pollution. The publication was not intended to defame any one nor is it
motivated; but only because of the public particularly students and members of the University had agitated over the prevailing pollution of air and
water. The statements published in the article were reasonable and true and was published only in the public interest. As a publisher championing
public cause, the defendants own a duty to the public to draw the attention of the authorities. The publication arose because the concerned
authorities were not taking action to prevent health hazard. The articles published can hardly said to be defamatory. The defendants took all care
and steps to bring to the notice of the plaintiffs President and in fact the impugned article also contains the report of the President also in a special
box column. This clearly establishes the bona fides of the defendant. The article does not contain any false or frivolous or imaginary details.
Therefore, this article cannot be said to be defamatory. It is also stated that the relief of injunction cannot be granted. If such a relief is granted, it
will tantamount to interfere with the freedom of press. The award given by Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries (F.I.C.C.I)
and all authorities is of no consequence in this case. The plaintiff company is also a member of F.I.C.C.I; that award has no legal sanctity and will
not insulate against any attempt by them to violate the Pollution Control Law. Bhopal Gas tragedy killed many thousands of people, maimed many
and brought in its trail or devastation, poverty and pestilence, though that company was started utilising the technical expertise and experience of
several nationalities of several countries and there was a wide spread commendation of the unit being pollution-free. Merely because there were
reports in ""The Hindu"" and ""Malai Malar"" and ""News Today"", it did not prove that the plaintiff is free from complaints of causing pollution. The
people around the factory were constantly making complaints to various authorities; the omission on the part of the authorities to take appropriate
action immediately will not confer any special protection to the plaintiff. The ""cover page"" of the magazine is mentioning the plaintiffs factory, this
was done only to draw the attention of the authorities to the danger of the locality and was not made to defame the plaintiff. The contents in the
article reflected only the views ascertained from the public. It is not out of imagination. The award conferred on the plaintiff by the Non-
Governmental Organization cannot be considered as sacrosanct. It is not correct to say that the name and reputation of the plaintiff are prejudiced.
Therefore, the suit is devoid of any merits and hence, it has to be dismissed.
On these pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as against the defendant?
3) Whether the report published in the journal is defamatory or made in good faith or for espousing public Cause in due diligence without mala
fide?
4) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?
Oral evidence was adduced by both sides. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and D.W.1 was examined. Ex.A.1 to A.4 were marked; Exs B.1 to
B.6 were marked. Though evidence was recorded, the counsel for plaintiff and the defendants submitted arguments only on legal aspects.
Attention was not drawn to any of the evidence. The reason is that they have argued only on the point, ""Whether the article is defamatory or not?.
They are not interested in the quantum of damages; that may be granted. Therefore, the only issue for consideration is,
Whether the impugned article is defamatory or not?
Therefore, other issues are not considered, as they are not pressed.
Issue: The plaintiff''s counsel referred to Halsbury''s Law of England-4th Edition Profusely. He has referred to the following passage.
Falsity and malice: In an action for libel or slander, it is the practice to allege in the statement of claim that the words were published falsely and
maliciously. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove falsity or malice to establish his cause of action. If the words are defamatory, the law
presumes that they are false, and it is for the defendant to plead and prove that the words are true. In other words, the onus of proving justification
is on the defendant.
Intention: The intention with which the words were written or spoken and published is irrelevant to the determination of the questions whether
or not the words were understood to refer to the plaintiff, and whether they were understood to bear a meaning defamatory of him.
Damages in libel: If a person has been labeled without any lawful justification or excuse, the law presumes that some damage will flow in the
ordinary course of events from the mere invasion of his right to his reputation, and such damage is known as ""general damage."" thus, a plaintiff in a
libel action is not required to prove his reputation, nor to prove that he has suffered any actual loss or damage. The plaintiff is not obliged to testify
although it is customary for him to do so, but, having proved a statement defamatory of him and not excused by any available defence, he is always
entitled at least to nominal damages. However, it is open to a plaintiff in a libel action to plead and prove special damage which he is entitled to
recover in addition to general damage.
In a claim for general damages, the damages to be awarded are said to be ""at large"" that is to say the award is not limited to any pecuniary loss that
can be specifically proved. At common law the assessment of damages is the exclusive function of a jury. The object of damages is to compensate
the plaintiff and not, except in special circumstances, to punish the defendant.
........Thus, exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant has published in a newspaper a defamatory statement knowing it to be
untrue, or reckless whether it be true or false, with the object of making a profit or gaining some other benefit from publishing it. It is not necessary
that the defendant calculates that the plaintiffs damages if he sues to judgment will be smaller than the defendant''s profit; what is necessary is (a)
profit; what is necessary is (a) knowledge that what is proposed to be done against the law or a reckless disregard whether what is to be done is
illegal or legal; and (b) a decision to carry on doing it because the prospects of material advantage outweigh the prospects of material loss.
Relying on these passages, the counsel for plaintiff contended that the plaintiff need not prove falsity or malice; the onus is on the defendant to
prove ""Justification"" that the publication,
complained of were fair comment on a matter of public interest;
Mr. P.S. Raman, counsel for the plaintiff argued that if the plaintiff proves that the matter published is defamatory, it is for the defendants to
prove that it was supported by truth and it is a fair comment in public interest.
On perusing Ex.A.1, the original publication, the cover page contains the colour photograph in which the storage tank of the plaintiff-company
is seen. The name of the plaintiff-company is also clearly visible in the photograph. Apart from that, there is a symbol of two cross bones beneath a
skull printed in red colour indicating danger to life. Just beneath the storage tank, there is a caption in Tamil, Visha Vayu Bayangaram"" meaning
danger of poisonous gas"" ending with a exclamation mark. Further beneath it is printed in a prominent manner in big letters, ""Nadungi
kondirukkum Gramangal"" that means, ""trembling villages"" with a question mark and also an exclamation mark; and below that in small letters, ""Oru
Echarikkai Report"" meaning, a ""caution report"".
The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the publication is ""per se"" defamatory; seeing the cover page, any person will form an opinion that the
plaintiff-company is guilty of the dangerous act which makes villagers around the area trembling. Therefore, the intention of the defendant, is made
very clear that it was published only with a view to cause disrepute to the fame and name of the plaintiff. Further, the counsel argued that the
words,
Danger to the village Kalapet, Pondicherry becoming Bhopal.
proves that there was no doubt in the mind of the publisher that the village Kalapet was likely to become another Bhopal. It means that the villages
are trembling with fear that the poisonous gas would escape and cause damage to the life of the people. That is, there is no doubt expressed by the
publication, but ""it asserts that the people are trembling with fear for their life and there is a danger of this village becoming another Bhopal. ""If it is
read along with the cover page, the intention is made clear. The defendant wanted to covey the idea that the plaintiff-company is responsible for
such a fear in the minds of the public in the surrounding villages. Since this is far from truth, the intention of the publication that it was made only to
defame the plaintiff is clear. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved their case that the article is defamatory in nature and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for
damages. However, the plaintiff is not interested in the quantum of damages, but it is sufficient if it is declared that the article is defamatory, and the
publisher is directed to make another publication withdrawing their allegation in their very next issue with the same prominence as was given earlier.
Counsel for the defendants Senior Advocate Mr. G. Subramaniam argued that the intention of the article is only to prevent recurrence of a
similar tragedy that struck Bhopal. It is purely with the good intention of cautioning the people and also the authorities to take timely preventive
action and save the people of that locality from a serious danger due to pollution of air by poisonous gas. He also pointed out to the wordings in
the cover page itself. It is clearly stated that it is only a caution report. A reading of the article would show they are only public views expressed by
the various people who were interviewed by the reporter. It gives only a picture as to what happened in and around the place and the views
expressed by the Pondicherry university staff and the letter written by the Vice Chancellor of the University and so on. It also states that the Vice
Chancellor Mr. K. Venkata Krishnan who has served earlier as the Director of the same plaintiff-company. The report also says, on hearing that,
the reporter felt something, fishy"". He has also published the photograph of the Vice-Chancellor in the report itself. Therefore, the reporter has not
concealed anything. He has even stated that there appears to be something ""fishy"" that the Vice-Chancellor was earlier occupying the post of
Director in the same plaintiff-company. Therefore, he has given only a true report as to what was informed to him and the reaction he had on
hearing them. He has acted impartially; he has given a true account of the reaction of the people without any addition. He has also published the
photograph of the University campus and the plaintiffs chemical factory. So, in order to decide whether the article is defamatory, the entire article
should be taken as a whole for the purpose of arriving at an inference. It cannot be looked in piecemeal; one line should not be taken out of
context and said that this particular sentence is defamatory. So viewed this article was not published with any mala fide or with intention to defame
the name and fame of the plaintiff-company; it was published only with the intention of protecting the people from any possible danger that may
strike due to some reason in future. It also laments whether anyone will not protect the lives of the people. The penultimate paragraph of the article
reads.
That is who is to save the life of the Villagers of that area, the teachers, students and staff of the University. So this has been published only to
request the authorities to take action to save the life of the people, students, staff and teachers of the University. Therefore, the intention is only to
draw the attention of the authorities to take effective measures from preventing any possible danger to the lives of the people. Therefore, it is not
defamatory in nature.
Further, the counsel argued that the press have a right to bring to the notice of the public at large and to the authorities such dangers faced by
the public and while discharging that duty or exercising that right, the members of press have a privilege or liberty even to exceed limits, to some
extent. Therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.
The counsel for the defendants also referred to the typed set wherein he has compiled number of earlier such reports on the incidents which
were brought to the notice of the public and the remedial measures taken by the authorities; but for the said publications, the remedial measures
would not have been taken at all.
In the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited and others reported in (1999) 4 All England Reporter 609, House of Lords has dealt
with a similar aspect in which it has been laid down as follows:
In considering whether allegations made in the press attracted qualified privilege, the matters to be taken into account, depending on the
circumstances, included; the seriousness of the allegation; the nature of the information and the extent to which the subject matter was a matter of
public concern; the source of information; the steps taken to verify the information; the status of the information; the urgency of the matter; whether
comment had been sought from the plaintiff; whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiffs side of the story; the tone of the article; and the
circumstances of the publication, including the timing. That list was not exhaustive, and the weight to be given to those and any other relevant
factors would vary from case to case.
.......
Above all, the Court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression, and should be slow to conclude that a publication
was not in the public interest, especially when the information was in the field of political discussion. Thus any lingering doubts should be resolved in
favour of publication.
Our Court had an occasion to deal with a similar matter in the case reported in the case of Ramaswamy v. Karunanidhi (1970 L.W. (Crl.) 245),
wherein Justice Somasundaram held as follows:
Thus, the plea of fair comment would not be sustained unless facts were proved which made it reasonable to make such a suggestion. Where base
and sordid motives which are not warranted by the facts, are imputed to a person, the defence that the publisher bona fide believed that he is
publishing what is true will not be a defence in point of time, ""good faith"", means good faith and also the exercise of due care and attention. ""Due
care and attention"" means that the labeler should show that he has taken particular steps to investigate the truth and has satisfied himself from his
enquiry as a reasonable man that he had come to a true concession. Mere subjective belief, without any objective basis, is not a dependable
criterion for substantiating the publication, on the ground that it was made in good faith and for the public good."" Counsel for the defendant argued
that basis for damage is malice. Admittedly, there is no malice on the part of the defendant. Therefore, there is no defamation at all.
Counsel for plaintiffs relied upon a decision reported in Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd. Vs. Thakorlal P. Thakor and Others, for the
proposition that the publication should be a fair comment,
The onus is on the defendants to show that the matter commented upon is a matter of public interest, that the statements of fact relating thereto are
true, and that the comments based on the facts are fair and bona fide. It is then for the plaintiffs to show that the words exceed the limits of fair
comment, and are not the real expression of the defendant''s opinion, or that the words are inspired by malice.
In New York Times Company v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964) at page 193, it has been held as follows:
To punish the exercise of this right to discuss public affairs or to penalize it through libel judgments is to abridge or shut off discussion of the very
kind most needed. This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But
1 doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticising their government, its
actions, or its officials.
An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.
The counsel for defendant argued that to succeed in a suit for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove malice. Admittedly, there is no malice in this
publication. The defendant''s case is that only in the public interest, only in order to bring certain facts to the notice of public at large and to the
authorities, the publication was made; before making such publication, the defendants had taken all steps to verify the truth; also they have
interviewed various persons in and around the locality; the article mostly contained the opinion and views of the persons who were interviewed and
the publication only gives the true picture of the statements made by these persons. It is only a report as stated by the persons in and around that
area. The reporter also published the views of the manager or the plaintiff-company. The personal opinion of the publisher did not find a place.
Therefore, the article as such, cannot be said to be defamatory and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that newspapers in the guise of exercising the freedom of press cannot public defamatory article as they do not
get any licence to do so. In the article, the author specifically expressed his opinion which is not true. Therefore, their statements cannot even be
justified by truth. Though the plaintiff does not attribute malice to the defendants, still the defendants are guilty of negligence in the senses that the
publication was made negligently without ascertaining the truth. This article is per se defamatory, especially the cover page. Merely seeing the
cover page, any person would get an impression that the plaintiff-company is guilty of spreading poisonous gas into the atmosphere and that poses
a danger to the lives of the people living in the surrounding areas. Further, the cover page itself clearly shows the plaintiff-company''s name.
Therefore, by publishing this picture, the message that was conveyed was that the plaintiff-company is guilty of polluting the atmosphere and
causing environmental hazard. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for damages for the defendants negligent publishing of the defamatory publication.
To arrive at a conclusion, as to whether the publication is defamatory or not, the contents of the article including the cover page should be seen
as a whole. A portion or part should not be taken in isolation to arrive at a conclusion for or against. The publication should be taken as a whole.
As stated already in Ex.A.1, the cover page bears a photograph of the storage tank of the plaintiff-company, the name of chemfab is clearly
seen. Therefore, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that this article relates to the plaintiff-company. Further, the skull and the two cross
bones published in red conveys danger to life. This is printed over the left corner of the photograph of the plaintiffs storage tank. Underneath this
photograph, the caption reads, ""Danger by Poisonous Gas"" with exclamation mark; beneath that, ""Trembling Villagers."" At the end of this caption,
there is a question mark as well as an exclamation mark. The effect of having a question mark at the end is to mean, ""whether the villagers are
trembling ?"" Next to that question mark, there is an exclamation mark also; that means, publisher was surprised how such a situation could exist ?
Therefore, taking both of them together, it conveys the meaning that, is it true that the villagers are trembling with fear ? and whether such a
situation could exist? That is the message it conveys when one reads the caption along with the question mark and the exclamation mark. Beneath
that, there is also a caption ""Caution Report, ""Echarikkai Report"", whereby the author cautions the authorities and the people that they should be
vigilant in order to avoid any mishap. It cannot be said that the article asserts that the villagers are trembling with fear. All that it conveys is, if
poisonous gas escapes, there is a likelihood of danger to the lives of the people.
In the article published in the inner page, it begins with the words, ""Kalapet next to Pondicherry is in danger of becoming a Bhopal."" There is
also a statement that due to the number of chemical factories in that area, the environment has become polluted and due to the poisonous gas
mixing with the atmosphere, the lives of students, teachers and staff as well as the people are affected. Thereafter, it also contains the statements
made by various persons and the interview of the Manager of the plaintiff-company. The statement of the Manager that the company was awarded
by Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industries in appreciation of keeping the environmental pollution under control has also been published; it
also said that each one is blaming the other, but everyone forgets that the people are in danger. ""During the enquiry, when the reporter hears that
the Vice Chancellor of Pondicherry University was the previous Manager of the plaintiff-company; he felt that ""there is something fishy"" in the
whole episode; he also referred immediately about the reports published by the Department of Environment of the University headed by Professor
Abbasi.
Therefore, a reading of the entire article in full would show that the people attached to University had given reports against the company when
the University was headed by a former Manager of the plaintiff-company. Therefore he expressed his opinion that there is something ""fishy"" in the
entire episode. Therefore, it also expressed a doubt as to whether the report filed by the University would be true in its entirety or whether it may
have been actuated by some extraneous considerations. Further, it also states that the University and the company people blamed each other.
Therefore, if it is read in its entirety without any bias either against the plaintiff or the defendant, the intention of the article appears only to caution
the public that if the people are not vigilant, there is a likelihood of another Bhopal tragedy occurring in this part. It cautions not only the public, but
also the authorities who are bound to enforce the law and prevent the pollution of the atmosphere, not to fail in their duty and to enforce the law
strictly. Therefore, this article is only a publication of the facts highlighting the situation in good faith, for protection of the health and life of public.
By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this article was not published in good faith. Therefore, this article has been published only in the
interest of the public, in good faith.
Freedom of Press which is included in the Freedom of Speech and Expression gives a privilege in such matters even to exaggerate or
''playdown'' to a small extent, provided it is only in the interest of the public at large. The press enjoys the qualified privilege under certain
circumstances as held by House of Lord in the decisions cited supra. The House of Lords have laid down the test to have and to enjoy the
qualified privilege which included the nature of information; the extent to which the subject matter was published; the source of information; the
steps taken to verify the information; the status of information; the origins of the matter; whether comment has been sought from the concerned
plaintiff; whether the article contains the gist of the plaintiffs version.
Bearing this in mind, if the article is perused, it will definitely fall within the ambit of qualified privilege. The article conforms to all these tests.
The author has taken all these steps before publication. Therefore, the publication is entitled for qualified privilege.
The intention of the publication appears to call the attention of public to the issue, with the ultimate aim of protecting the public from even a
remote chance of recurrence of the Bhopal tragedy. The publication may at the most amount to criticising the officials of their inaction in enforcing
the pollution control and similar laws in force. Democracy cannot survive in the absence of freedom of speech; Freedom of speech cannot be
exercised if criticising officers for their action, culminate in a decree of libel. The minimum guarantee of freedom of speech is an unconditional right
to say what one feels about a public affair. Therefore, the Press has the unconditional right to criticise on a public affair; so long as there is no
malice, it does not amount to libel.
In a country like ours, where most people are not even aware of their valuable rights, if such public criticism is curtailed, the result would be
disastrous. The depletion of cultivable land and drinking water sources on the Palar River Basin from Vaniambadi to Ranipet in the North Arcot
District can be related directly to the absence of investigative journalism in yester years. The result was exodus of innocent people from their places
of birth. The fact remains, in spite of various laws against air and water pollution, both are polluted even in major cities like Chennai and Trichy,
with impunity.
Under the circumstances, if such public criticism is also crushed by libel decrees, there would be no way to protect the interest of the public.
Many a matter of public interest was set right by bringing that to the notice of the officials by such publications by the press. While so, publishing,
even with exaggeration to some extent, is permissible.
For the reasons stated above, reading as a whole, the publication cannot be said to have been published with the intention to defame the
plaintiff and therefore; it is not defamatory. The publication is only in good faith. The issue answered against the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is liable
to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties would bear their costs.