1. In a suit for damages filed against the Publisher, Editor, Printer and Author of three articles published in the newspaper Indian Express alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff, an application for an interim injunction, pending the determination of the suit, restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from writing, publishing or re-publishing or printing any article, alleging that the plaintiff is a smuggler of arms to India or an agent of association of ISI (i.e Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence) etc. and also requiring the defendants to publish apology and retracting the allegations made in the articles.

2. It is necessary to advert to the facts in the background of the suit claim.

3. The plaintiff who claims to be a citizen of United Arab Emirates (in short UAE) and carries on business as a developer of real estate and hotel at Dubai has caused this suit instituted through his Constituted Attorney Shri Amolsen Indrasen Navalkar, serving as Assistant Managing Clerk in a firm of Advocates, stated to be of Little & Co. who are also advocates for the plaintiff concerned in the suit herein, claiming a sum of Rs. 20 crores as damages from the defendants for having printed and published three defamatory articles in the newspaper “Indian Express”. The three articles published in Bombay edition of Indian Express are:

1) Article entitled: “Pak Arms Cargo on way to India” published on 4th February, 1993;

2) Article entitled: “ISI behind blast?” published on 13th March, 1993; And

3) Article entitled: “Firearms came in two consignments” published on 24th March, 1993.

Xerox copies of Newspaper clippings of the above three articles have been annexed at Exhibits ‘A’, ‘F’ and ‘G’ to the plaint. The defendant No. 6 has been named as the Author of articles of Ex. A and G.

4. To appreciate the objections of the plaintiff to the impugned articles, it is thought necessary to note the relevant gist and/or summary of the same.

5. (i) Article of 4th February, 1993 being Ex. A to the plaint.

The information of the said article is ascribed to “Highly placed Customs Intelligence Sources” and proceeds to mention that the Inter Service Intelligence of Pakistan (in short ISI hereinafter) had slipped a huge consignment of automatic weapons for Indian shores through syndicate operating, both in UAE and Bombay and the plaintiff is named as the head of a Pakistani syndicate operating from UAE who is helping ISI to smuggle arms into India and that the plaintiff is a smuggler and who is having a vast smuggling net-work in India and Pakistan;

(ii) Article of 13th March, 1993 Ex. F to the plaint.

The said article is in a nature of a report of the Express News Service of 1st defendant which refers to its earlier article of 4th February, 1993 ((i) above) and states the Special Branch of Police having flashed a message alerting that Pakistan's ISI would use disruptive means to wreak havoc in the economic power house of the country and would be using Pakistani Syndicate for smuggling firearms into India, which was exposed in the article of 4th February, 1993 and wherein plaintiff has been described as a head of the Pakistani Smuggling Syndicate. The said article also particularly refers to the series of explosions which rocked the city of Bombay on the previous day;

(iii) Article of 24th March, 1993.

This article is written by the 6th defendant in all probablity after discovery of large quantity of highly explosives by the Bombay Police and mentions as having believed that the same explosive was despatched to India in two separate cargoes, landing of which was done, for notorious smugglers named, as Mohammed Dossa being an associate of Mustaq Memon alias Tiger a prime suspect behind recent bomb blast and Mustaq Majnu. The reference to the plaintiff with his various roles has been made which I quote therefrom:—

“Dossa and Majnu are wanted under COFEPOSA along with Mustaq in a gold seizure case. The supplier of the gold was the Pakistani drug trafficker-cum-smuggler-cum-gun-runner known in intelligence circles by the pseudonym ‘AWG’.”

It may be stated that reference to ‘AWG’ appearing therein is linked to the plaintiff whose name is Abdul Wahab Galadari.

6. The plaintiff has asserted that the statements, allegations and imputations in the said articles are grossly defamatory to him and have brought him into public scandal, odium and contempt and have injured his credit and reputation and he further proceeds to state that the defendants have indulged in such things for increasing the circulation of their newspaper for making profit, the allegations made are on the basis of hearsay and unfounded material.

7. Defendant No. 6 has filed his affidavit for himself and on behalf of other defendants. The defendants do not deny the publication of impugned articles in their newspaper. However, they have with great vehemence raised a plea of justification for the publications of the said articles asserting that they have done so honestly in the public interest and their articles are based on information received from Government agencies.

8. The defendants make reference to the time when articles were published and the circumstances in the background which prevailed in this country and in particular in the city of Bombay, which experienced traumatic moments on account of riots that broke out in December, 1992 and January, 1993 followed by series of horrifying and devastating bomb blasts in March, 1993 resulting into the loss of human lives and properties worth crores of rupees. The investigating agencies, like Police, Customs Authorities launched upon the probe, and articles were published on information from such agencies and on proper inquiry and care. Reference is made, in that behalf, to:

i) Communication dated 25th January, 1993 issued by the Collector of Customs (PREV) about the receipt of intelligence report about possible landings of sophisticated arms along coastline of Bombay, Konkan and South Goa and sounding an alert. (Ex. 1 to the affidavit in reply).

ii) Copy of letter dated 22nd February, 1993 to Additional Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, CID, Bombay from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (Preventive), CID, Bombay, mentioning about “information about gang operating on western coast into smuggling of gold and arms etc.” The said letter (Ex. 2 to Defendants' affidavit) also mentions about the issuance of detention order dated 13th October, 1991 against the plaintiff under COFEPOSA. The material portion thereof reads as under:

“This man (i.e the plaintiff), is a Pakistani National settled in Dubai. It is suspected that he is having connections with I.S.I His name is concerned in the smuggling of Gold valued Rs. 5,83,888,616/- vide Customs R.A No. 602/91 dated 16-8-91. His gang is having connections at Bombay, Vapi (Gujarat State), Daman, Silvasa, Dadra-Nagar-Haveli, Kalsi.”

iii) Press release issued by the Government of Maharashtra being dated 18th May, 1993 (Ex. 3) declaring plaintiff and others named therein as absconders and calling upon the named absconders to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay within 30 days of publication.

9. The another aspect highlighted is that the defendants were not only who published the articles figuring the name of the plaintiff as having involved in activities of smuggling, but the other newspapers, like the Times of India. The Statesman, Mid-day had also published the similar news and articles, figuring the name of the plaintiff and xerox copies of such various published articles have been annexed as Exhibits 4(1) to 4(6) to their affidavit-in-reply. It may be stated that the matter containing such various articles of news items in other newspapers is in consonance with as appearing in the impugned articles.

10. The defendants thus claim that statements made in the impugned articles are correct and they are in a position to justify the same at the trial. The statements made are of general public importance concerning the security and stability of the country and that they have acted bona fide.

11. The plaintiff has filed affidavit in rejoinder through his another Constituted Attorney Shri Mahesh Jayavant Palekar repeating in general what is stated in the plaint and adhering thereto. It is hinted that the plaintiff intends to initiate similar action against the other newspapers also.

12. Both the learned counsel Mr. Shah for the plaintiff and Mr. Vahanvati for the defendants were heard, who based their arguments on the basis of pleadings of their respective parties, as adverted to hereinabove. Various authorities were also referred to.

13. On behalf of the plaintiff it was urged that the statements in the articles are based only on hearsay and unfounded material and are of speculative nature. Some of the statements are false. Mention is made that the plaintiff is not a Pakistani national. Allegations that plaintiff is a smuggler, gun-runner, drug-trafficker, was of the syndicate associated with ISI, are made without any basis and justification.

14. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants it is submitted that the documents in particular Exs. 1 to 3 to their affidavit clearly show the involvement of the plaintiff in various activities mentioned therein and the defendants have, after due inquiry, based their impugned articles on the information received by them from authorised agencies. The plaintiff has been declared absconder by the authorities and pointed reference is made to Exhibit No. 2 and the statement appearing in the caption of subject, reading as “Information about gang operating on western coast into smuggling of gold and Arms Act.” (underline supplied) which concerned public authorities have on the intelligence report gathered have supplied the information and upon which the impugned articles are based. The learned counsel for the defendants submits that for a plea of justification there is adequate material and urges that interim order be not granted as it would harm the right of freedom of press and expressions.

15. On consideration of rival contentions, three issues would require consideration. In the first instance, whether publication of articles was in public interest, whether due care and caution was taken before the publication and thirdly whether there is a merit in the plea of defendants justification.

16. Hereinabove, I have given the gist of impugned articles the publication of which has not been denied by the defendants.

17. The situation and prevalent atmosphere in the country and in particular in city of Bombay, which experienced traumatic experience of riots that broke out in December, 1992 and January, 1993 and the horrifying and devastating bomb explosions in this city in March, 1993 was of extraordinary nature. There was a loss of the human lives and properties worth crores. The tranquility of the society was greatly disturbed. It is not necessary to mention its magnitude. After the occurrence of such ugly events, the same received massive publicity in the newspapers and on the other news media. The need to find out “the brain and the hand” behind these disruptive acts was focussed and demanded from all quarters. Various investigating agencies swung into actions and as the people were anxious to know and had also right to know the result, that the information gathered had to be conveyed to the people. The role of the newspapers at that juncture becomes relevant. If all the impugned articles are read carefully, the time when the same were published and the circumstances in which published, have to be borne in mind. The events of December, 1992 and January, 1993, have been mentioned earlier. The statements in the impugned articles if read in the context of said events, then one cannot say that the intention of the publication was anything other than public interest. In such situation the interest of the public in knowing the truth outways the interest of a private individual in maintaining his reputation. A freedom of the newspapers to publish matters of public concern also needs to be protected and such needs should out-balance the individual's right to protect his reputation in particular at the interlocutory stage when the defendants plead justification for what they have published from which as noticed hereinabove their defence is not such as can be rejected out-right. In a democratic set up, as we have in this country, press is known as the fourth limb of the State in addition to the executive, legislature and judicial which also plays an important and vital role in highlighting the grievances of the public and no democracy can succeed and function effectively if the press is deprived of its freedom of expression. The freedom of press is a corner stone of the liberty of the people and any attempt to circumscribe it would be bad and repugnant. In the present situation which is prevalent it will be a sacred duty of the press to highlight anti-social activities indulged by the forces as were demonstrated in the recent past.

18. The statements in the impugned articles, it would be noticed are substantially in consonance with the documents viz. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 annexed to the affidavit in reply of the defendants which we have already noticed earlier. As to how defendants could get at confidential communication is not the issue at this stage of the matter. What matters is the contents thereof. The said documents clearly mention the name of the plaintiff and his role and involvement as revealed by the concerned public authorities of the Government, which they have gathered during the investigation. The said documents clearly state that the plaintiff was involved in smuggling of gold, arms, operation of the gang, existence of syndicate etc. True it is that the allegations are of a very grave nature. But, in my view, the defendants were justified in publishing the information as the media which they gathered from the authenticative source. The material so furnished to the defendants do show that the Government agencies have strongly suspected the involvement of plaintiff in smuggling activities. The reference to the involvement of the plaintiff in drug-trafficking in “State of New York”, even the plaintiff admits in rejoinder that he was charged for the said offence, but was discharged after adjudication. The point as at this stage of the matter is whether defendants have exhibited due care and caution before publication and the answer has to be in the affirmative.

19. It is not possible to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have to prove themselves the allegations made against the plaintiff in the impugned articles. It would be going too far to accept that. It is important to note that the defendants have based their articles upon the information supplied by the concerned Government Agencies who will be prosecuting in due course. It is also equally important and relevant to note that the other leading newspapers like Time of India, Statesman etc. have also published articles, on the very subject involving the plaintiff.

20. A plea of justification especially put forth by the newspaper is the subject of judicial pronouncements. For example in a case of Fraser v. Evans, (1969) 1 All ER 8 Lord Denning observed:

“The Court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says that he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest. That has been established for many years ever since Bonnard v. Perryman (1) The reason sometimes given is that the defences of justification and fair comment are for the jury, which is the constitutional tribunal, and not for a judge; but a better reason is the importance in the public interest that the truth should be out.”

21. The next is the case of Harakas v. Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange Ltd., reported in (1982) 2 All ER 701, again Lord Denning observed (at page 703):

“This case raises a matter of principle which must be observed. This Court never grants an injunction in respect of libel when it is said by the defendant that the words are true and that he is going to justify them. So also, when an occasion is protected by qualified privilege, this Court never grants an injunction to restrain a slander or libel, to prevent a person from exercising that privilege, unless it is shown that what the defendant proposes to say is known by him to be untrue so that it is clearly malicious. So long as he proposes to say what he honestly believes to be true, no injunction should be granted against him. That was made clear in Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co. v. Beall, (1882) 20 Ch.D 501.”

22. The same view has also been adopted by the Division Bench of this Court comprising of Mookerjee, C.J and Smt. Sujata Manohar, J., in an Appeal No. 464 of 1989 from Notice of Motion No. 48 of 1989 in Suit No. 3907 of 1988 in the Case of Dr. Yashwant Trivedi v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., decided on 29th June, 1989 and the ratio in the case of Harakas v. Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange Ltd., (supra) and in particular the portion quoted above has been approved. The Division Bench also observed that:

“The crux of the matter is that when in a libel action at the interlocutory stage the defendant raises plea of justification and, as in this case, mentions evidence by which he might substantiate his case, the Court is unlikely to grant an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff to restrain further publication of the alleged libel.”

In the said Judgment the passage appearing in the treatise on Libel and Slander by Gatley, Eighth Edition, has been provided with approval which is also quoted hereinbelow:—

“1574. Justification: Where the defendant swears that he will be able to justify the words — unless the Court is satisfied that he will not be able to do so. The validity of a justification, if pleaded, is eminently a matter to be determined by a verdict of a jury. When once a defendant says that he is going to justify the words complained of, there is an end of the case so far as an interim injunction is concerned, although in a proper case it may be that the Court will intervene on the ground of a breach of confidence.”

23. The above referred judicial pronouncements and the passage from treatises of Gately very clearly set the legal position and the principle underlined therein in the matter of such nature needing no further Elaborations.

24. In the circumstances I do not find any merits in the application herein. Notice of Motion is dismissed. Plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants of this application. The application is made on behalf of the plaintiff for the stay of this order. However, it needs to be clarified that the Court as such has not granted any ad-interim relief, but certain statement was made on behalf of the defendants themselves before the Court that they will not publish any articles concerning the plaintiff in their newspaper. However today the learned counsel for the defendants is totally unwilling and in opposition in making such statement. In view of this, there is no question of granting any stay to the order hereinabove. At the request of plaintiffs advocate issuance of certified copy is expedited.

Order accordingly.