Delhi Court Orders HT, Neelesh Misra To Pay ₹40 Lakh For Defamatory Report On Businessman

In her detailed judgment, District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur held that the publication and the journalist were liable for defamation, noting that the news article was published without any documentary basis and had harmed the reputation of Gupta.

The report in question, authored by Misra and published by Hindustan Times in January 2007, claimed that an individual (without naming Gupta) had been dismissed from a company for financial misconduct.

The Court ordered Hindustan Times to bear three-fourths of the compensation amount (Rs.30 lakh), while Misra was directed to pay the remaining one-fourth (Rs. 10 lakh).

In addition to monetary damages, the Court directed the publication to issue an apology within 60 days and permanently restrained it from making any defamatory statements about Gupta.

Background

Gupta had joined a company named Integrix as a Director in 2000 and resigned in 2005 to start his own venture. In 2006, Integrix initiated two civil suits against him, one over a defamatory email and another concerning the alleged hacking of its website.

During those proceedings, the Delhi High Court had noted that the IP address linked to the controversial email and hacking incident could be traced to Gupta.

However, Gupta contended that he had voluntarily resigned from Integrix, and there was no allegation or evidence of financial irregularities in the suits filed by the company.

In response to the 2007 article, he had filed a defamation suit not only against the newspaper and journalist but also against Integrix, its directors, and its legal counsel. He later settled with all except Hindustan Times and Misra.

Court’s Findings

The Court found that the defendants failed to establish that Gupta had been “sacked” for any financial wrongdoing. “There is nothing on record in the judicial record of both suits alleging any financial irregularities committed by the plaintiff herein while he was a director,” the Court observed.

Importantly, the Court noted that the article lacked any credible source or documentary evidence supporting the claim that Gupta was removed from the company on grounds of misconduct.

Moreover, although Gupta was not named in the article, all his witnesses confirmed they could identify him based on the context, which led to reputational damage.

The Court firmly rejected the defendants’ contention that the article constituted a fair comment or that it was published without malice. “Reporting in the article that the plaintiff was sacked for alleged financial irregularities without any substance or material… is equivalent to character assassination,” the court said.

Institutional Responsibility

While both the journalist and the publication were found guilty, the court emphasized that greater responsibility lies with a media institution. “An institution is always bigger than an individual person... A big institution like defendant no. 1 is supposed to have a check upon the reports/news articles prepared by an individual reporter,” the Court held, adding that “higher the power, higher the responsibility.”

The Court acknowledged that Misra might have been “careless” in his reporting, but emphasized that Hindustan Times had an institutional duty to verify and vet content before publication.

Conclusion

Gupta, who had sought Rs. 1 crore in damages, was awarded Rs. 40 lakh by the court after a detailed analysis of the factual matrix and the legal standards governing defamation.