| Citation | AIR 1997 Raj.170 |
| Date of Judgment | 27TH November, 1972. |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court. |
| Case Type | Civil Writ Petition Challenging Defamation. |
| Appellant | Manjulatha Kumari. |
| Respondent | DP Choudhary |
| Bench | Justice Mohd.Yamin. |
| Referred | Section- 499,500 of Indian Penal Code. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case revolves around Kumari Manjulatha, a well-educated and respected family residing in Kalal colony, Jodhpur. Manjulatha a BA student has parents who holds advanced degrees and her brother is a university student. On the other side, Durga Prasad the principal editor of Dainik Navjyoti a daily newspaper is main defendant in this case. The Managing Editor and Publisher of the same newspaper also fall under the category of defendants, they are collectively responsible for publishing news concerning Manjulatha in their newspaper. On 18th December 1977, an article was published in Dainik Navjyoti accomplished by unfair comments and false imputations about Manjulatha. The article claimed that Manjulatha eloped with her boyfriend, Kamlesh when she left her home under the guise of attending extra classes at her college. The defendants filed an appeal, arguing that they should not be held liable for publishing defamatory statements against Manjulatha.
ISSUES
- Was the publication of news about Manjulatha by Durga Prasad and others in Dainik Navjyoti newspaper true or false?
- Did the publication of information about Manjulatha aim to damage her reputation?
- Did the lower court make the correct decision in awarding damages worth Rs.10,000/-?
ARGUMENTS
The defendant argued that the published content was entirely based on accurate and truthful facts. They asserted that the correspondent, who happened to be an advocate, received the information from the police station and verified it with the plaintiff mother. Subsequently, the correspondent sent the report to the daily newspaper with the sole intention of using it to compel Manjulatha to return to her parents if she encountered anyone who was aware of the news and had read it.
The plaintiff contended that the published news contained false accusations and unfair comments, which resulted in damaging her reputation. She argued that the defendant-appellants showed complete disregard for her standing in society when publishing the news. Furthermore, the plaintiff-respondent claimed that the actions of the defendant were both negligence and malice, leading to the spread of hatred against her and subjecting her to ridicule and shock.
Additionally, the plaintiff stated that the defendant conduct had severe consequences for her family. They faced disrespect in society and experienced a loss of honor due to the publication. Furthermore, the plaintiff-respondent asserted that the news publication hindered her ability to arrange her marriage, resulting in feelings of inferiority. Despite sending a notice to the defendant-appellants, they disregarded her claims. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondent sought damages worth Rupees 10,100 from the defendant-appellants, along with 12% interest.
JUDGEMENT
This judgment pertains to an appeal against the district judge’s decree. According to the judgment, if the defendant has indeed harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, they are liable for their actions, even if they did not intend to do so or had no such motive at the time of publishing the words. It is presumed that every individual possesses knowledge of and intends the normal and foreseeable consequences of their actions. The published words can be considered defamatory if they are false, regardless of whether they were published accidentally or without intention.
From the arguments presented in court, it was established that the information about the plaintiff published by the defendant was false. There was no evidence or indication from the respondent’s side to suggest the validity of the information. Thus, it was determined that the report was false, leading to harm to the plaintiff and her family’s reputation.
The fundamental objective of defamation law is to protect individual reputations. Therefore, even if the respondent did not intend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, acted in good faith, and genuinely believed the information to be true, they are still held accountable because the defense of privilege was not raised.
The publication of the false news article resulted in a decline in Manjulatha’s reputation within society. It also created numerous challenges for her family in finding suitable marriage proposals. Since the published words were proven to be false and defamatory, general damages were assumed, and the court deemed the awarded damages of Rupees 10,000 to be appropriate.
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=D.P.%20Choudhary%20And%20Ors.%20vs%20Manju%20lata%2C1997&pagenum=1
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/d-p-choudhary-v-manju-lata-1997-landmark-case-on-defamation/#Facts_of_the_case
This Article is written by Bhumika Hitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt of JG Institute of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
