Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a defamation case filed against Hindustan Times, by a 1999 batch IFS Officer, regarding articles published 22 years ago. The court said that reputation is not so fragile as to be ruined by an unsavory incident at the beginning of one's career; rather, it is built over time through conduct and work. 

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “If it is any solace, one may observe that reputation is not so fragile that it can be ruined or demolished by some unsavory incident which happened in the beginning of the career of the plaintiff. Reputation is what one builds over a period of time by his conduct and work”. 

Mahavir Singhvi, a 1999 batch IFS Officer, sued the Hindustan Times over reports published in 2002 while seeking damages of Rs. 5 Crores. Singhvi contended that the newspaper, represented by its publisher Rakesh Sharma, along with defendants Vir Sanghvi (editor) and Saurabh Shukla (correspondent), published an article in July 2002 under the headline ‘IFS Probationer Sacked After Tapes 'prove' Misconduct’. A similar report appeared in the Hindi edition, of Hindustan, titled ‘Shadi se inkar karne par adhikari ne yuvti ka jeena haram kiya’. 

Represented by Advocate Aadil Singh Boparai, Singhvi asserted that the articles were published with the intent to malign and assassinate his character. He claimed that the stories, though ostensibly about another individual, were crafted to implicate him, thereby causing severe damage to his reputation. Advocate Boparai also suggested that these publications were made in conspiracy with disgruntled individuals.

The court emphasized the definition of defamation as outlined in Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, noting that defamation involves the destruction or diminishment of someone's good name or reputation, the act of speaking ill of them, or making false accusations. “The intrinsic facet of “Defamation” is harm to ―reputation” or lowering the estimation of a person in public domain. This makes it pertinent to understand what constitutes “reputation”, the court further outlined. 

The court noted that to grasp the concept of reputation, it is essential to distinguish between character and reputation, as the law aims to protect the latter, not the former. Character represents a person's true nature, whereas reputation is how others perceive that nature. Character comprises the principles and motives guiding a person's behavior, while reputation results from how others view that behavior. The right to reputation fundamentally concerns the respect earned through integrity, honorable conduct, and right to living, rather than fame or distinction. A good name, therefore, is akin to a tangible asset, essential for happiness. Consequently, reputation is fragile, while character remains self-sustaining.

The court further observed that to determine if a statement caused reputational harm, the presence of wrongful intent, or ‘malice’, must be considered, as it is crucial to establishing defamation. The court further highlighted that in civil defamation cases, even words spoken without ill will may be actionable, and malice is implied in the act of speaking or publication. 

“Through the concept of unjust harm to reputation, defamation laws tend to measure the right to freedom of expression against the right of a person to maintain their reputation. Therefore, an analysis of the law of defamation also requires an understanding of right to freedom of speech and expression, right to reputation of an individual and right of citizens to information in a Democratic society”, the court observed. 

The bench further outlined that the law of defamation also necessitates an understanding of the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to an individual’s reputation, and the right of citizens to information in a democratic society. 

“It is the primary function of the Press to provide comprehensive and correct information, especially when it is brought into the public domain. The action of defamation about true and faithful reporting is unhealthy for a democratic set-up”, the bench opined. 

The court held that while Mahavir Singhvi may have had a legitimate grievance against the woman whose conversations were allegedly contained in the tapes received by the Ministry, he was already pursuing an independent remedy against her. 

Despite being shattered and distraught by the incident, Mahavir Singhvi's belief in his truthfulness gave him the courage to stand for his rights and seek reinstatement through the Central Administrative Tribunal. Balancing the public's right to information, the media's duty of truthful reporting, and the individual's right to reputation, the court held that the articles in question were not per se defamatory. 

Case Title: Mahaveer Singhvi v Hindustan Times Limited (2024:DHC:4749)