Jaspal Singh, J.— On June 7, 1987, the Jansatta, a daily newspaper published a news item in Hindi. The plaintiff has provided its translation which reads as under:
“THE PRIEST KILLS PREM”
(By Jansatta Correspondent)
New Delhi, 1st June. The Priest Baba Mangal Nath of Ram Johri Mandir in village Palam is absconding after murdering Prem Sarup. He killed him with the help of his vagabonds and anti-social persons. The body was thrown in the drain.
Shri Parkash Chander General Secretary YUVAK VIKAS KENDRA has levelled the charges. He has charged the Baba/Jogi that he was selling Smack and other drugs in the Temple and he was accused of several offences.
Shri Chandra stated that Baba Mangal Nath through his disciple Bhartu, Namberdar summoned Prem Sarup @ Premi to his house. When he reached the temple the Baba told him that whosoever did not obey him faces the consequences. The allegations are that the Baba and his stooges thereafter gave severe beatings to the said Premi with sticks and from rods and thereafter threw him in the drain. They stated that the report is lodged with Police Post Palam. The Police arrested the Baba and co-accused and bailed them out. Both of them are absconding.”
The grievance of the plaintiff is that said news item was false, malicious and defamatory and that it has lowered him in the estimation of others. He has thus claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages from the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and the Chief Editor of Jansatta.
2. Needless to say, the defendants have contested the suit. As per them, neither the news item was false nor defamatory but was true and published after proper verification.
The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
2. Whether the article published in ‘JANSATTA’ dated 7.6.1987 has resulted in defamation of the plaintiff? OPP
3. If issue No. 2 is held in favour of the plaintiff whether the defendants are liable to pay damages and compensation and if so, to what amount?
4. Relief.”
3. I need not detain myself on Issue No. 1. Not a word in support was said and rather it was conceded that the plaintiff had the locus standi to institute the suit. I need say no more.
4. While the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff comprised of hardly ten sentences including an introductory note, the learned counsel for the defendant was even more brief. The case was put as under:
For Plaintiff:
The news item had lowered the plaintiffin the estimation of himself and others, it being defamatory, malicious and false. (If what has been reproduced above falls short of ten sentences, it is only because the introductory part has been left out.)
For defendant:
The plaintiff has proved nothing. The suit merits dismissal.
5. I have been left to till and toil.
6. What is defamation? The classic definition is that of Parke B in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105 at 108, where he said:
“A publication … which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.”
However, this definition has not been considered to be sufficient. In Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England (1924) 1 KB 461 Scrutton LJ said:
“I do not myself think this ancient formula is sufficient in all cases, for words may damage the reputation of a man as a business man, which no one would connect with hatred ridicule or contempt.”
Lord Atkin too, not only in Tornier's case (supra) but in Sim v. Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237, also expressed the view that the definition of Parke B seemed to be too narrow.
The Faulks Committee in their report have recommended that for purposes of civil cases the following definition of defamation may be adopted:
“Defamation shall consist of publication to a third party of matter which in all the circumstances would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally.”
I confess, I feel more drawn to it and would heartily accept it with just one reservation. It appears to me to be unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory interpretation would be placed in the minds of all reasonable people. To me, it would suffice if some appreciable section of reasonable reader would do so. I tend to agree, with respect, with what Holmes J. observed in the judgment of the U.S Supreme Court in Peck v. Tribune Co. (1909) 214 US 185. The case related to an advertisement depicting the plaintiff commending a brand of whisky. Holmes, J. said:
“If the advertisement obviously would hurt the plaintiff in the estimation of an important and respectable part of the community liability is not a question of majority vote.”
7. A few more things need to be noticed before I come to the bones.
8. It may be recalled that the argument on behalf of the plaintiff was that the news item was “false and injurious” and had lowered the plaintiff in his own estimation. On this I need say only this much that reputation is the estimation in which a person is held by others. A man's estimate of himself is not his reputation.
9. With the preliminaries clear and over, let us have a look at the statement of the plaintiff, for only he has cared to enter into the witness box.
10. Let us first take his examination-in-chief. The relevant portion runs as under:
“In the year 1987, a news item was published in a Hindi newspaper, I am not aware of the name of the newspaper. The allegation published in the news item was that Baba Mangal Nath with the help of his disciple Bhartu (plaintiff) has (sic.) killed one person named Prem Swaroop. However, the said Prem Swaroop is still alive. The said news item had damaged my reputation and caused a great shock to me at (sic) my old age. The news item regarding alleged murder of Prem Swaroop was false.
I may at this stage, and for purposes of clarity reproduce the relevant portions of his cross-examination also. Here they are:
“It is correct that I was arrested by the police on the allegation that I was responsible for the murder of Ram Swaroop. News item was published a day after my arrest. It is also correct that that case is still pending in a court in Patiala House….. I do not know what report was lodged with the police …. It is incorrect to suggest that the news item was based on the case registered against me. I am illiterate. I do not know in which newspaper that offending news item was published. Somebody told me that a news item has appeared against me. The news item was not read out to me nor I was informed about the particulars of the newspaper. Some relations came to me and, told me that in one newspaper a news item had appeared against me.”
11. What does this statement show? Does it not show that a case has been registered and is still pending against the plaintiff for the alleged murder of one Prem Swaroop? If that be so, what possible grievance there can be against the news item appearing in the Jansatta? Let us remember it that one of the essential requisites of an action for defamation is that the statement complained of is false. The suit fails on this ground alone.
12. Let us proceed further. The plaintiff complains of a news item and not the news item. He does not even know in which newspaper the offending news item was published. The so-called offending item was not even read out to him. He was not even told the name of newspaper. How, under the circumstances, can Jansatta be thus faulted? What he was told by his relations (who have neither been named nor produced) was that “in one newspaper”, “a news item” had appeared against him. How does it bring in the Jansatta?
13. True, the identity of the plaintiff is established and even if the offending news item is taken to be the one published by the Jansatta, it is not proved to be false. The next essential that the statement contained therein was defamatory is also not proved because it is not established that in the eyes of fair and reasonable persons it reflects to the discredit of the plaintiff. The test of defamatory words as per Lord Atkin in Slim v. Strotch (1936) 52 T.L.R 669 at P. 671: “the person or class of persons whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words used”. Nowhere is this test satisfied. No such person has been examined. Not a word has been said about such reaction.
14. Ofcourse, the plaintiff does talk of a “great shock” caused to him. I refuse to accept it. I reject it. He admits in his cross-examination that the news item was not even read out to him. He was not even told the particulars of the newspaper. Anyhow, let us assume that he refers to the news item which appeared in the Jansatta. Let us have a look at it again. It nowhere says that the plaintiff had a hand in the killing of Prem Swaroop. It nowhere states that the plaintiff was a privy to it. The only role assigned to him is that Prem Swarup was summoned by Baba Mangal “through his disciple Bhartu”. The plaintiff nowhere says that he is not the disciple of Baba Mangal. He nowhere alleges that the version that Baba Mangal had summoned Prem Swaroop through him is false. What is he then complaining about?
15. I would have drawn the curtain here had the learned counsel for the plaintiff not complained during arguments that the news item had been published “maliciously”. This calls for some comment. Here “maliciously” is not a mere pleader's proverb but a term of substance and the plaintiff must allege and prove it.
16. And, what would be “malicious”? While according to Bayley, J. it may signify doing an act willfully without just cause or essence (See Bronage v. Prosser (1825) 4 B&C 247), in the words of Leslie, J. the publication of-a statement which to the defendant's knowledge is false and calculated to injure is malicious and is treated as intended to injure (see Shaipiro v. Law Morta (1923) 40 TLR). Malice in its proper and accurate sense is a question of motive, intention or state of mind and may be defined as any corrupt or wrong motive of personal spite or ill-will; any unjustifiable intention to inflict injury upon the person defamed. Surely, in view of what has already been noticed by me above, the reporting in the Jansatta cannot be said to be malicious.
17. I hold and with no hesitation that issue No. 2 is not proved. With this falls issue No. 3. The suit is thus dismissed but with no order as to costs.