Delhi High Court orders Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka to pay Rs 2 cr to army officer in defamation case
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted Rs 2 crore to an Indian Army officer as compensation for the damage to his reputation caused by a 2001 "expose" carried out by a news portal, which accused him of involvement in corruption related to defence procurement, media reports said.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who heard Major General M S Ahluwalia's case, ordered Tehelka.Com, its owner M/s Buffalo Communications, its proprietor Tarun Tejpal, and two reporters, Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel, to make the payment.
The judge emphasized that this was a clear and severe case of defaming an honest Army officer, and an apology made 23 years after the publication was "not only insufficient but meaningless".
However, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish any defamation committed by Zee Telefilm Ltd and its officials when broadcasting the story as per their arrangement with the news portal.
The court further noted that the plaintiff not only suffered a decline in public estimation but also endured severe damage to his character due to serious corruption allegations, which cannot be rectified or healed by any subsequent refutation.
On March 13, 2001, the news portal published a story titled "Operation West End," which alleged corruption in defence deals related to the import of new defence equipment.
The plaintiff, represented by lawyer Chetan Anand, contended that he was defamed in the said story, as it falsely broadcast and reported that he had accepted a bribe.
In its 48-page judgment, the court dismissed the defence of "truth," "public good," and "good faith" raised by the defendants.
It emphasised that there could not be a more damaging defamation to a person of integrity than falsely imputing that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 50,000.
The court further highlighted that as a consequence of such reporting, a Court of Inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff. Although no misconduct was proven, the plaintiff faced "serious displeasure."