Sarveen Chaudhary vs Vijay Singh Mankotia & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Applicant-plaintiff has filed a suit  for recovery of damages and for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and for mandatory injunction against non-applicants/ defendants, whereby amongst others inter alia prayer for restraining the non- applicants-defendants  from  making/  publishing  false,  libelous and defamatory statements/news reports against the applicant- plaintiff, has also been made.

Applicant-plaintiff  has  placed  on  record  Press Note/proceedings of Press Conference conducted by non- applicant/defendant No.1 in CD/DVDs alongwith script thereof, wherein allegations against applicant-plaintiff regarding purchase of land by herself and her family members in violation of Rules applicable thereto, have been made. News items, published by non-applicants/defendants No.2 and 5 on the basis of news sent by non-applicants-defendants No.3 and 4 and other Press Correspondents, have also been placed on record. News published in other different news clipping, related to allegations levelled by the non-applicant/defendant No.1, have also been placed on record.

Details of land purchases, since 14.07.1994, by the applicant-plaintiff and her family members, have been given in the plaint and all allegations with respect to purchase of lands have been refuted by the applicant-plaintiff, item wise.

Applicant-plaintiff has also placed on record documents related to the purchases of the land in order to substantiate clarification and to contradict allegations made by non-applicant/defendant No.1.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff that husband of applicant-plaintiff Brigadier Pawan Kumar has retired from the Indian Army with dignity and grace with an impeccable service record after putting in 32 years of service and during his service he had made certain investments from his savings and pursuant to his retirement he has made certain other investments from his savings and his retiral benefits and the son of applicant-plaintiff, who has completed his Masters of Business Administration after Graduation at Delhi, is also an Income Tax Assessee and has given up a lucrative job at Delhi with intention of setting up an Industrial Project/business in the State of Himachal Pradesh and her husband and son do not take any interest in the political activity of the applicant-plaintiff. Whereas, applicant-plaintiff is contesting elections against non-applicant/defendant No.1 since 1993 and applicant-plaintiff and non-applicant/defendant No.1 are political rivals and have contested election of Member of Legislative Assembly of Himachal Pradesh against each other for six times and out of those, she has lost election two times i.e. in the years 1993 and 2003, however has defeated non-applicant/defendant No.1 four times i.e. in the years 1998, 2007, 2012 and 2017 and now she has been inducted as a Cabinet Minister in the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Further that due to continuous defeats, non-applicant/defendant No.1 is harbouring ill-will, grudge and inimical attitude against applicant-plaintiff and, thus, on the false unverified and untrue grounds, he is trying to tarnish her image and reputation not only in her Party, but also in the eyes of voters of her Constituency and general public and with ulterior motives he is making many false and ex facie defamatory accusation against applicant-plaintiff and her family members by stating that applicant-plaintiff is a part of 'Land Mafia' and has used her position to reap large amount of pecuniary benefits for herself and her family.

It is further contended that on the basis of allegations, it is evident that they are designed to elicit public as well as private loss of confidence in the applicant-plaintiff amongst her Constituents in Himachal Pradesh as well as her Party colleagues all over India and also amongst her relatives, friends and associates throughout the Country.

It is also submitted that non-applicants-defendants No.2 and 5 have collusively published these false allegations levied by non-applicant/defendant No.1 in their daily news paper Amar Ujala without even attempting to verify the actual facts, in order to tarnish image and reputation of the applicant-plaintiff by writing and publishing these defamatory statements.

Learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff has referred news items published in Amar Ujala placed on record with documents. In one news item, published on 28.08.2020, it has been reported that preliminary inquiry has been completed by the Vigilance Department against a Cabinet Minister, wherein number of irregularities and illegalities have been found as land has been purchased much more than the area permitted to be purchased and stamp duty has also been evaded. In the box alongwith this news item, a previous news item published in this news paper has also been highlighted, wherein it was reported that Vigilance inquiry has been started against a Minister of Himachal Pradesh. In another news item, published on 29.08.2020, it has been published that Minister had purchased land of worth `5.5 Crores for a consideration of `95 lacs and it has come in the knowledge of Vigilance Department, in its preliminary inquiry (discrete verification), that for hiding real value there was transaction of lacs of rupees. Alongwith this news item also, in the box item, old news item has been republished stating that Vigilance inquiry has been initiated against a Minister of Himahal Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff has submitted that no such inquiry has ever been initiated, conducted, much less completed, and the said fact has also been published in other news papers like Punjab Kesri and Dainik Jaagran on 29.08.2020, wherein it has been published that no permission has been granted for Vigilance inquiry against the Minister.

It is further submitted that all the transactions have been reflected by the applicant-plaintiff and her husband in Income Tax returns filed from time to time and have also been disclosed at the time of filing affidavit at the time of filing Nomination at the time of contesting elections and non-applicant/defendant No.1 is having knowledge about the disclosure made by applicant-plaintiff, in her affidavit, filed at the time of contesting elections for the State Assembly and the said fact is substantiated from the complaint dated 09.09.2020 made by non-applicant/defendant No.1 to the Prime Minister, wherein in last paragraph, he has mentioned that in Para-9 of Form 26 of the affidavit filed by the applicant-plaintiff, she has mentioned her profession and occupation as a public servant (Social Worker) and this averment in complaint which definitely indicates that non-applicant/defendant No.1 has gone through the contents of the disclosure made by applicant-plaintiff in the public domain. However, despite that, he is making false allegations and non-applicants/defendants No.2 and 5 are publishing news items without verifying and confirming the authenticity and correctness of those allegations.

Learned counsel for the applicant- plaintiff pressing for interim order, has referred pronouncement of the Apex Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and others vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, (2012) 10 SCC 603, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the principles governing passing of prior restraint order against publication in some exceptional cases discussing the exceptions involved in detail.

Reliance has also been put on judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that media trial is very antithesis of rule of law and it can well lead to miscarriage of justice.

Learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff has also referred copy of order dated 16.01.2014, passed by Delhi High Court in I.A. No.723/2014 in CS(OS) No.102/2014, titled as Swatanter  Kumar  vs.  The  Indian  Express  Ltd.  &  others, wherein restraint order was passed against publication of write up, articles and telecast which were prima facie defamatory.

Without adjudication, no conclusive findings as to correctness or falsity of the allegations can be arrived at this stage. However, on perusal of material available on record, prima facie, it appears that unverified allegations can prejudicially affect the public mind and there is real and tangible risk of media trial of the applicant-plaintiff without verifying the authenticity of the allegations. As is evident from the news items dated 28.08.2020 and 29.08.2020 published by non-applicants/defendants No.2 and 5, the same were contrary to the factual position which substantiates the apprehension of the applicant-plaintiff that there may be an attempt to create an adverse public image of the applicant-plaintiff with ulterior motive and intention on the basis of false, unverified and unauthentic allegations.

In view of above, balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant-plaintiff for passing an ad-interim order as a prima facie case, indicating irreparable loss to the applicant-plaintiff, in absence of restraint order, is made out.

Accordingly, non-applicants/defendants, their agents, nominees, representatives, successors and assignees, are restrained from making or publishing any false or libelous statements or material without verification and confirming its authenticity against the applicant-plaintiff, till next date of hearing.

It is made clear that observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and will not preclude the non- applicants/defendants to report the matters, which are covered under ambit of fair reporting, but on the basis of true, correct and verified and authentic information.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made by 21.09.2020.

Notices to the non-applicants/defendants have also been ordered to be issued, returnable on 26.11.2020, vide order dated 07.09.2020. Applicant-plaintiff as well as Registry to make compliance on their part.

Copy dasti on usual terms.