Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

CS(OS)--253/2017. Case: DR. SHASHI THAROOR Vs. ARNAB GOSWAMI AND ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCS(OS)--253/2017
CitationNA
Judgement DateDecember 01, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) 253/2017

DR. SHASHI THAROOR ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Gaurav

Gupta, Mr. Muhammad Ali

Khan, Mr. Jaspal Singh,

Mr. Namrah Nasir, Ms. Azra Rehman, Mr. Omar Hoda and

Ms. Sakshi Kotiyal, Advocates. versus

ARNAB GOSWAMI AND ANR ..... Defendants

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Malvika

Trivedi, Mr. Debarshi Dutta,

Mr. Mrinal Ojha, Mr. Rajat

Pradhan and Ms. Sriparna Dutta, Advocates.

Reserved on : 24th October, 2017 % Date of Decision: 1st December, 2017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J:

I.As. 6674/2017, 8809/2017 and 10378/2017

  1. Present suit has been filed seeking compensation and damages from and against the defendants for making defamatory remarks against the plaintiff as well as for permanent and prohibitory

    CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 1 of 61

    injunction restraining the defendants from reporting any news or broadcasting any show related to the death of Mrs. Sunanda Pushkar till the investigation is complete and also to restrain the defendants from maligning and defaming the plaintiff in any manner.

  2. With consent of parties, the three interim applications being I.A. Nos. 6674/2017, 8809/2017 and 10378/2017 were taken up for hearing and disposal.

    RELIEFS IN I.A. 6674/2017

  3. In I.A. 6674/2017 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC accompanying the suit, the plaintiff prays for the following reliefs:-

    "

    1. Grant an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for restraining the Defendants from reporting any news or broadcasting any show related to the death of the Deceased till the pendency of the present proceedings;

    2. Grant an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for restraining the Defendants from maligning and defaming the Plaintiff in any manner; and

    3. Pass such other and further Orders as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court."

    HEARING ON 29TH MAY, 2017

  4. On 29th May, 2017, this Court after hearing both the parties orally observed that the defendants can air stories containing facts relating to investigation into Mrs. Sunanda Pushkar's death, but cannot call the plaintiff a criminal or condemn him as guilty. This Court had

    CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 2 of 61

    also stated that the defendants must bring down the rhetoric. At that stage, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants had stated that he would advise his clients accordingly. Consequently, the Court did not pass any formal order.

    RELIEFS IN I.A. 8809/2017

  5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed another interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC being I.A. 8809/2017 praying for the following reliefs:-

    "

    1. Direct the Defendants not to make any defamatory publications against the Plaintiff in any manner;

    2. Direct the Defendants not to cast aspersions on the Plaintiff and not to state or imply that the Plaintiff is directly or indirectly responsible for the death of the Deceased.

    3. Direct the Defendants to refrain from indulging in misleading news reporting in any form whatsoever;

    4. Direct the Defendants to not post any material related to the present Civil Suit on its Twitter, Facebook and any other social media website;

    5. Direct the Defendants to refrain from misrepresenting the facts of the case and broadcasting outright lies and to confine their reporting only to the established facts as reported by the Police and accepted in a Court;

    6. Direct the Defendants not to mention the expression "Murder of Sunanda Pushkar" anywhere since it is yet to be established by a competent Court of law that the death of the Deceased was a 'Murder', in order to ensure that the

      CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 3 of 61

      Trial of the case is not prejudiced;

    7. Direct the Defendants to refrain from inciting their journalists or guests on their channel to assume criminal guilt on the basis of their false assertions;

    8. Direct the Defendants to refrain from posting or reporting any content which is contrary to the assurance which was given by the Counsel for the Defendants on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 29.05.2017; and

    9. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate herein.

      HEARING ON 04TH AUGUST, 2017

  6. The aforesaid application was filed on the ground that despite the assurance given by learned senior counsel for defendants on 29th

    May, 2017, the defendants continued to engage in defaming and maligning the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff urged that the Court must direct the defendants not to use the expression "murder of Sunanda Pushkar" as it is yet to be established by a competent Court that her death was murder and to ensure that the trial, if any, was not prejudiced. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff had further alleged that the journalists of the defendant channel were 'haunting him' and virtually coercing him into making a statement.

  7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for defendants had stated that the defendants stood by what was assured by him in Court and they had not called the plaintiff either a murderer or any names in any of the news broadcast.

    CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 4 of 61

  8. Since the allegation of the learned senior counsel for plaintiff was that plaintiff was being coerced into making a statement, this Court orally observed that any person including an accused has a right to silence under the Indian Constitution. As the next date of hearing was 16th August, 2017, this Court did not pass any formal order.

    RELIEFS IN I.A. 10378/2017 IDENTICAL TO THOSE SOUGHT IN

    I.A. 8809/2017

  9. On 7th September, 2017, the plaintiff filed another interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC being I.A. 10378/2017 praying for the identical reliefs sought for in I.A. 8809/2017.

    ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

  10. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel for plaintiff, while arguing the aforesaid three applications, stated that the plaintiff is an eminent personality in Indian and International Politics. He stated that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the defamatory remarks made by defendants against him. Some of the remarks of the defendants described as defamatory by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff are as follows:-

    1. "Shashi Tharoor your game is up. Come out now, wherever you are hiding from. You knew Shashi that I know that your hands were not clean."

    2. "We are also going to prove Shashi Tharoor that you knew Sunanda Pushkar was lying motionless in Room

      CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 5 of 61

      No.307 since about 7'o clock in the morning. We also will prove today Shashi Tharoor that it's a damn lie that Sunanda Pushkar asked everybody to leave Leela Hotel. You asked everybody to leave Leela Hotel Shashi Tharoor."

    3. "You are exposed today Shashi Tharoor."

    4. "But I know he (Shashi Tharoor) is a Hypocrite, Duplicitous man."

    5. "Sunanda wanted to speak out that is also on Sunanda Murder Tapes today and it is proven on the Sunanda Murder Tapes that she was stopped forever as the needle of suspicion points closer and closer and closer to the inconsistencies of one duplicitous man called Shashi Tharoor."

    6. "Well, he (ST) is an unprincipled criminal masquerading as a politician."

    7. "The person trying to throttle her (Late Ms. Sunanda Pushkar) is Shashi Tharoor. I mean let's be clear here, you know."

    8. "Don't be a coward Shashi Tharoor." "Come on, face me you coward."

    9. "I think all of us agree that as of now the nation wants to know why Shashi Tharoor is the only man happy with the way the Delhi Police is unprogressing the case."

      CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 6 of 61

  11. He pointed out that not a single allegation had been made by the investigating authorities against the plaintiff and the plaintiff had not even been implicated or named as an accused or even a suspect in the criminal proceedings. He stated that the investigation into the death of the deceased was still in progress and the investigating agency was yet to file the police report/charge sheet under Section 173 CPC.

  12. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff further stated that defendant no.1 had a history of broadcasting incorrect and unsubstantiated news reports and had even been penalized and reprimanded for it by Indian Regulatory authorities and by appropriate International Bodies. Some of the instances of the misconduct by defendant no.1 mentioned by learned senior counsel for plaintiff are as follows:-

    1. Justice P.B. Sawant incident.

    2. Order by NBSA regarding debate on Kanimozhi and 2-G Scam.

    3. Leakage of secret defence letter.

    4. Order by NBSA regarding Jasleen Kaur incident.

    5. Order by NBSA regarding death of Sunanda Pushkar.

    6. Order by Of-Com, U.K. for biased reporting.

  13. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff stated that in the present case on the first date of hearing, i.e., 29th May, 2017, the plaintiff did not press for any interim order as the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants had given an assurance that no further damning and defaming comments would be made. Mr. Salman Khurshid stated that the assurance worked as the defendant media house was now careful

    CS(OS) 253/2017 Page 7 of 61

    in how it reported about the case and the vitriol displayed earlier against the plaintiff was now missing but, he stated, some of its reporters were not exercising the same care while tweeting. He also pointed out that in their reply to the I.A. No. 8809 of 2017, the defendants had denied giving any such assurance. This, according to him, clearly demonstrated the mala fide conduct of the defendants.

  14. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in Naveen Jindal Vs. M/s. Zee Media Corporation Limited &Anr., (2015) 219 DLT 605; Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 235 the Courts have held that the power to order restrain of publication in the media would clearly encompass the stage when the criminal case against...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT