2. Whether sartaj is liable for defamation for spreading false accusation against Mr.

Wilson on
prime time show?

2.1 Wilson is having the right of reputation

Mr. Wilson like any other citizen of India is having the right of reputation; a reputation is one of
the most important assets of a human. As it is stated by Jurist Blackstone “Every man is entitled
to have his reputation preserved inviolate”. A man's reputation is his property. Depending
upon perception of that man, reputation is more valuable to him than any other property.
Reputation is the state of being held in high esteem and honor or the general estimation that the
public has for a person. Reputation depends on opinion, and opinion is the main basis of
communication of thoughts and Information amongst humans.

The right of an individual to have reputation was recognized by Supreme Court of India in the
matter of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani:1

“Reputation is an integral and important aspect of dignity of every individual. The right to
preserve one’s reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem.”

In the instant case also Mr. Wilson who created the Essex Corporation with his years of hard
work, perseverance and brilliance. 2But TV news anchor Mr. sartaj just on the statements made
by Rachel carried out a 2 hour story on prime time. In the first segment, Quibbler TV called
for viewers to vote on “Whether Wilson should be allowed to get away with harassing
women?” The TV channel also started a twitter campaign with the #wilsonthepervert.3

This act damaged the reputation of MR. Wilson and resulted in other company Umbrella
corporation who were planning to take acquisition of Essex corporation refused to acquire

1
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3357

2
Moot para
3
Moot para
Essex Corporation citing reasons that they cannot do business with someone who is in the
middle of a media trial.4

Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another and an
individual has a right to protect his honor and reputation5An investigative journalist is entitled to
criticize, but, without touching the reputation and without exceeding the limits and bounds made
by law, since law would not permit anyone to use his freedom of speech or expression as to
injure another’s reputation or to indulge in what may be called as “character assassination”6

In the instant case Mr. sartaj by accusing Mr. Wilson a sexual harasser and by starting that Mr.
Wilson is a pervert without any evidence in a prime time show defamed the image of Mr. Wilson
in public. Not only had that he further started the twitter campaign named Wilson the pervert.

2.2 freedoms of speech and expression is not absolute-

It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which
is secured by the constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without
responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives
immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse
this freedom. Reasonably limited, this freedom is an inestimable privilege and without such
limitation it might become a scourge of the republic.7

It is submitted before the court, the media or any such modes of communication have to very
careful when the question comes of reputation or esteem of any person or institution involved as
any irresponsible or reckless campaign by the media can play havoc with the esteem, prestige,
reputation and goodwill of any person8

In the case of Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz &Ors.9 has held
that a journalist is in no better position than any normal citizen and a journalist has no special
privileges attached to him. According to him, the Supreme Court further held that while

4
Moot para
5
Ram Jethmalani v Subramanyam Swamy, 126 (2006) DLT 535.
6
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Anr. v. R. Rajagopal, AIR 2006 Mad 197
7
Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz 2012.
8
Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Yashwant Singh & Ors., (2012) 132 DRJ 370
9
(1981) 3 SCC 208
reporting on public figures, journalists have to undertake a higher degree of care, circumspection
and responsibility.

The Law Commission of India in its 200th Report on Trial By Media Free Speech and Fair Trial
under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 August 2006 has concluded, "The freedom of the media
not being absolute, media persons, connected with the print and electronic media have to be
equipped with sufficient inputs as to the width of the right under Article 19(1)(a) and about what
is not permitted to be published under Article 19(2). Aspects of constitutional law, human rights,
protection of life and liberty, law relating to defamation and Contempt of Court are important
from the media point of view. 10

The prejudice that results from reporting has been taken into account by the Indian Supreme
Court in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court 11while explaining the meaning of "trial by
media" as under:-

"The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a

widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity
court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a
lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that, regardless of the
result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to
live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny."

In Jessica Lal murder case i.e., Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 12

The Supreme Court observed that Every effort should be made by the print and electronic media
to ensure that the distinction between trial by media and informative media should always be
maintained. Trial by media should be avoided particularly, at a stage when the suspect is entitled
to the constitutional protections. Invasion of his rights is bound to be held as impermissible.

10
The Law Commission of India in its 200th Report on Trial By Media Free Speech
11
(2009) 8 SCC 106
12
(2010) 6 SCC 1
2.3 MR sartaj defamed Mr. Wilson

As by running a two hour show on prime time and calling Mr. Wilson a pervert and sexual
harasser without any evidences or any justifiable reasons mr sartaj should be held liable for
defamation as fundamental right of free speech and expression contains restrictions and Mr.
Wilson is also having the right of reputation.

While free speech is a fundamental right, such right is neither untrammeled nor superior to other
fundamental rights in the Constitution. It is hemmed in by restrictions in Article 19(2). Other
rights, such as the right to fair trial, may be antithetical to it in several instances.13

The Apex Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC in
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others14 has held as under:-

One cannot be unmindful that right to freedom of speech and expression is a highly valued and
cherished right but the Constitution conceives of reasonable restriction. Right to free speech
cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of reputation is a fundamental right.
It is also a human right.
15
It has been held in D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India that if maintenance of democracy is
the foundation for free speech, society equally is entitled to regulate freedom of speech or
expression by democratic action. The reason is obvious viz. that society accepts free speech and
expression and also puts limits on the right of the majority. Interest of the people involved in the
acts of expression should be looked at not only from the perspective of the speaker but also the
place at which he speaks, the scenario, the audience, the reaction of the publication, the purpose
of the speech and the place and the forum in which the citizen exercises his freedom of speech
and expression. The Court had further observed that the State has legitimate interest, therefore, to
regulate the freedom of speech and expression which liberty represents the limits of the duty of
restraint on speech or expression not to utter defamatory or libellous speech or expression. There
is a correlative duty not to interfere with the liberty of others. Each is entitled to dignity of
person and of reputation. Nobody has a right to denigrate others' right to person or reputation."

13
Dr. Shashi Tharoor vs Arnab Goswami And Anr
14
(2016) 7 SCC 221
15
(1996) 5 SCC 216
It is submitted that “without …a lively sense of responsibility a free press may readily become
powerful instrument of injustice16

Stressing on media responsibility the courts have opined “Media has the immense potency to
reach the public and influence them, this entails that all the channels understand and realise the
heavy responsibility that is thrust on them and that there
is no case for possible misuse17

Media in modern times has acted in a grossly inappropriate and irresponsible manner, there are a
multitude of examples whereupon the media has abused its freedom. It has caused impediments
in the administration of justice. It has delved into malpractices such as paid news, media trial,
yellow journalism and over sensationalization of issues and has acted irresponsibly by
misquoting lawyers, judges and formulating baseless assertions.

It is humbly recalled that SC had observed that “the responsibility of the press is greater than the
responsibility of an individual because the press has a larger audience. The freedom of the press
should not degenerate into a license to attack litigants and close the door of justice nor can it
include any unrestricted liberty to damage the reputation of respectable persons.18

It is humbly put forth that, “the press is a servant, not the master of the citizenry, and its freedom
doesn’t carry with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on ordinary citizens”19

(Conclusion)

It is put forth, that, almost every section of society is regulated. Advocates are in a free
profession, but their profession is regulated inasmuch as their licence can be suspended or

16
Pennekamp v. Florida, (1946) 328 US 331 (365); Supra Note 41, D.D Basu, p. 63
17
Court On Its Own Motion v.State,146 (2008) DLT 429
18
Bijoynanda v.Bala Kush, AIR 1953 Orissa 249
19
Miami herald v. Tornillo, (1974) 418 US 241
cancelled by the Bar Council for professional misconduct. When such an act is done, then Art.
19(1)(g) is not attracted, similarly the licences of doctors, chartered accountants, etc., can be
suspended/cancelled by their regulatory bodies, then also Art. 19(1)(g) is not attracted. Judges of
the Supreme Court or the High Court can be impeached by Parliament for misconduct;
Independence of judiciary isn’t circumvented then. But the media claims that no action should be
taken against it for violating journalistic ethics, as the same would violate art. 19(1)(a) and
contrary to freedom of press. In a democracy everyone has to be accountable, but the media
claims it should be accountable only to itself. This self-accountability is in conflict with the
maxim of Nemoiudex in causasua, i.e. one cannot be a judge of its own cause.