APPELLANT

1. Whether the parody column published by Silbil Magazine featuring Baba Satyanand in liquor
advertisement was defamatory thereby causing him mental distress.

Every man is entitled to have his reputation. Jurist Blackstone has added to this proposition and indicated
that 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. In simpler words, reputation is nothing but enjoyment of good opinion on
the part of others. So, the right to have reputation involves right to have reputation inviolate or intact.

The definition of defamatory statement as given in Salmond and Heuston on the law of Torts, twentieth
edition is stated as:

A defamatory statement is one, which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it
refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members if society
generally and to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or
disesteem. The statement is judged by the standard of an ordinary, right-thinking member of society. Hence
the test is an objective one, and it is no defence to say that the statement was not intended to be defamatory,
or uttered by way of a joke. A tendency to injure or lower the reputation of the plaintiff suffices, for if words
are used which impute discreditable conduct of my friend, he has been defamed to me, although i do not
believe the imputation, and may even know that it is untrue, hence, it is settled that a statement may be
defamatory although no one to whom it is published believes it to be true.

As per Blacks Law Dictionary1, defamation means the offence of injuring a person's character, fame, or
reputation by false and malicious statements. The term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander.
Defamation in law, is attacking anothers reputation by a false publication (communication to a third party)
tending to bring the person into disrepute. The concept is an elusive one and is limited in its varieties only
by human inventiveness. Although defamation is a creation of English law, similar doctrines existed several
thousand years ago. French defamation law, required conspicuous retraction of libellous material in
newspapers and allowed truth as a defence only when publications concerned public figures.2

It is submitted before the Honble Court that defamation requires the publication be false and without the
consent of the allegedly defamed person. Words or pictures are interpreted according to common usage and
in the context of publication. Injury only to feelings is not defamation; there must be loss of reputation. The

1
 defamed person need not be named but must be ascertainable . Actual truth of the publication is usually a
defence to a charge of defamation.

Furthermore, Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a persons reputation and tends to
lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid
him.3

The parody column published by Silbil magazine was defamatory and caused mental distress to Baba
Satyanand. Baba Satyanand is a well renowned public figure and the publication made by silbil magazine
featuring Baba Satyanand in an advertisement illustrating description of importance of liquor by Baba
Satyanand is in complete contravention to his prominent teaching, i.e., not to touch liquor has caused hurt to
religious feelings of followers and injury to the reputation of Baba Satyanand. The followers of Baba Satyanand
possess a strong belief system as a result of which they have developed a sect called satyas and such an
advertisement making fun of their godly figure and subsequently insulting the person who they admire is
altogether outrageous.

The Preamble to the Constitution plays an important role in interpreting the freedoms mentioned in Article 19.
The ideals mentioned in the Preamble cannot be divorced from the purpose and objective of conferring the
rights. The freedom of 43 speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) must take colour from the goals set out
in the Preamble and must be read in the light of the principles mentioned therein. The Preamble seeks to
promote Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. In its
widest meaning and amplitude, fraternity is understood as a common feeling of brotherhood. While justice,
liberty and equality have been made justifiable rights under the Constitution, the idea of fraternity has been used
to interpret rights, especially horizontal application of rights. The Preamble consciously chooses to assure the
dignity of the individual, in the context of fraternity, before it establishes the link between fraternity and unity
and integrity of India. The rights enshrined in Part III have to be exercised by individuals against the backdrop
of the ideal of fraternity, and viewed in this light, Article 19(2) incorporates the vision of fraternity. Hence, the
restriction imposed by the statutory provision satisfies the content of constitutional fraternity. The fraternal ideal
finds resonance also in Part IVA of the Constitution.

There have been various instances where significance of right to reputation has been witnessed.

In the celebrated judgment of Ram Jhetmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy4, the Court defined defamation as a
public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. It dwelled upon the balance between the
right to reputation and held that law of defamation, by making actionable certain utterances, runs counter to
another widely accepted legal tenet- the right to freedom of expression, but the two have been harmonised by
judicial process so that an individuals right to privacy and right to reputation is preserved and at the same time
right to freedom of expression is also protected. The Honble Court also explained the defences of truth, fair
comment and privilege available in a suit for defamation as under:

2
Truth or justification is a complete defence. In public interest absolute privilege is a complete defence. Thus,
it is humbly submitted that the advertisement published by Silbil Magazine is not connected to reality in any
manner and also the Magazine has not provided a fair justification for publishing the column. The reputation of
Baba Satyanand is of paramount importance to him and his followers and anything which is not even true, if
endangers the reputation of a well-renowned public figure should not be tolerated.

In the Geeta Lord Krishna said to Arjun :

akrti chpi bhtni

kathayihyanti
te vyaym

ambhvitaya chkrtir

maran d atirichyate

(Geeta : Chapter 2 Shloka 34) which means -

"For a self respecting man, death is preferable to dishonour"

It is further submitted that the international human right treaties explicitly provide for the right to reputation as
well as right to free speech and expression. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 in Article 12
clearly stipulates that no one shall be subjected to attack on his honour and reputation. Scrutinising on this
score, it cannot be said that reputation should be allowed backseat whereas freedom of speech and expression
should become absolutely paramount. The right to privacy is respected, and will give way only in case the
truthful disclosure, albeit private, is meant for public good. The right to protection of reputation and the right to
freedom of speech and expression are seemly balanced.

In the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. 5 It was held that Articles 14 and
19 have now been read to be a part of Article 21 and, therefore, any interpretation of freedom of speech under
Article19(1)(a) which defeats the right to reputation under Article 21 is untenable. The freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute but is subject to constrictions under Article19 (2). Restrictions
under Article 19(2) have been imposed in the larger interests of the community to strike a proper balance
between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests specified under Article19(2). Ones right must be
exercised so as not to come in direct conflict with the right of another citizen. The argument of the petitioners
that the criminal law of defamation cannot be justified by the right to reputation under Article 21 because one
fundamental right cannot be abrogated to advance another, is not sustainable. It is because (i) the right to
reputation is not just embodied in Article 21 but also built in as a restriction placed in Article 19(2) on the
freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a); and (ii) the right to reputation is no less important a right than the right to
freedom of speech. iii. Article 19(2) enumerates certain grounds on which the right to free speech and

3
expression can be subjected to reasonable restrictions and one such ground is defamation. 51 Although libel
and slander were included in the original Constitution, yet the same were deleted by the First Amendment,
whereas defamation continues to be a part of the Constitution. Therefore, it is fallacious to argue that
defamation under Article 19(2) covers only civil defamation when at the time of the enactment of the
Constitution, Section 499 IPC was the only provision that defined defamation and had acquired settled judicial
meaning as it had been on the statute book for more than 90 years. iv. Sections 499 and 500 of IPC continue to
serve a public purpose by defining a public wrong so as to protect the larger interests of the society by providing
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is incorrect to suggest that the purpose, logic
and rationale of criminal defamation no longer subsists in the modern age, and the law having served its goal, it
must be struck down as violative of Article 14. Arguably, in the modern age, the need for the law is even
stronger than it was in the 19th century. The constitutional validity of a statute would have to be determined on
the basis of its provisions and on the ambit of its operation as reasonably construed as has been held in Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India6.

Moreover, given the presumption of constitutionality, it has also been held by this Court that in judging the
reasonableness of restrictions, the Court is fully entitled to take into consideration matters of common report,
history of the times and matters of common knowledge and the circumstances existing at the time of legislation.
The concept reasonable restriction conveys that there should not be excessive or disproportionate restriction.
Merely because law of criminal defamation is misused or abused would not make the provisions
unconstitutional if they are otherwise reasonable. In the matter at hand......................

Moreover, in D.P. Choudhary and Ors. V. Kumari Manjulata7, it was said that if a false news item is published in
a newspaper, whoever reads it he has his own reservations about whom a false report is published. The object of
law of defamation is to protect an individuals interest in his reputation. It is no defence in a suit for defamation
that the defendant didnt intend to injure the plaintiffs reputation, if, in fact, it has been injured. Even if the
defendant bonafidely believed in the truth of the words published, he will still be liable unless the defence of
privilege is raised.

Furthermore, in R. RajGopal and anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu 8, it was said that no one can publish anything
about anyone without his/her consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does
so, he would be violating the other persons right to privacy.

Right to privacy is not expressly guaranteed. However, the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh's 9 case held
that right to privacy is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of India. In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,
and in P.U.C.L. v. Union of India10, the Supreme Court reiterated the law that right to privacy is part of
the right to 'life' and 'personal liberty' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In these decisions, the

4
Supreme Court placed reliance on the International Treaties to which India is signatory and came to a
conclusion that Article 21 read with relevant Article in the International Treaty/Covenant would lead to a
conclusion that right to privacy is part of Article 21.

It is humbly submitted to the Honble Court that in case of Mr. Umar Abid Khan and others v. Vincy Gonsalves
and Ors.11 in paragraph 35 of the precedent, defamation and freedom of speech is distinguished in words as-

Every person has a legal right to perceive his reputation inviolate in law, it has been accepted as personal
property and it is jus in rem a right good against the entire world. A mans reputation is property and degree of
suffering occasioned by the loss of reputation as compared to that occasioned by loss of property is greater. The
Court therefore must draw a balance between freedom of speech and protecting the reputation of an
individual.

Next to life, what man cares most is their reputation. Baba Satyanand is popular and respectable for his honest
conduct and teachings. His followers are immensely influenced and the parody column is inflicted to harm the
reputation and goodwill of appellant in the eyes of right thinking members of society as well as among the
public at large. The publication of August issue would cause irreparable damage to appellants reputation as
guarded by Art.2112 of Indian Constitution, and the freedom of press isnt an excuse to malign the reputation of
any person.

It ....................The respondents have no right to culminate the reputation of the plaintiff without there being any
factual basis.

In case of Selvi J. Jayalalithaa v. R. Rajagopal 13, the Madras High Court observed that journalists after
investigating are entitled to do criticism, but without touching the reputation and without exceeding the limits
and bounds made by law, since law wouldnt permit anyone to ...........his freedom of speech and expression as
to injure anothers reputation or to indulge what may be called character assassination.

In the case of K.V Ramniah v. Special Public Prosecutor 14, the question as to the nature of freedom of speech in
Article 19(1) of the Constitution came up for consideration before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein
the Division Bench held that

Freedom of speech in Article 19(1) cannot be taken to mean absolute freedom to say or write whatever a
person chooses recklessly and without regard to any persons honour and reputation. The right guaranteed by
the Constitution, it must be borne in mind, is to all the citizens alike. The right in one certainly has a
corresponding duty and judged in that manner also, the right guaranteed cannot but be a qualified one. Indeed

5
the right has its own natural limitation. Reasonably limited alone, it is an estimable privilege. Without such
limitations it is bound to be a scourge to Republic.

Moreover, in case of Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper 15, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the fact that
the defendant didnt know the statement to be defamatory was irrelevant. A person making a statement which he
believes to be innocent, but which is, in fact, defamatory by reason of facts unknown to him but known to the to
whom he makes it, is liable in an action for defamation.

Similarly the principle of E. Hulton & Co. V. Jones 16 is that liability for libel doesnt depend on the intention of
the defamer but on the fact of defamation.

Furthermore, in the case of Dainik Bhaskar v. Madhusudan Bhaskar 17, it was held that although there Is no
corresponding Indian Statute, the principle of the English Act can be applied in India on the ground that is more
just and equitable as compared to the common law which it has modified.

in case of Gambhirsinh R. Dekare V. Falgunibhai Chimanbhai Patel and others18, Honble Supreme Court has
ruled down that the Editor whose name is published in said newspaper [in view of section 7 19 of PRB Act] is
liable for civil and criminal liability, if published matter is defamatory. The Supreme Court in Haji C.H.
Mohammad koya v. T.K.S.M.A Muthukoya20 while considering the provisions of section 7 of PRB Act, 1867
vis-a-vis the liability of an editor in respect of anything published in his supervision had expressed somewhat
similar view. The Court had opined that where a persons name appeared as an editor in a paper, provisions of
section 7 of the PRB Act, 1867shall automatically apply and he being the person who controls the selection of
the matter that is published in s newspaper is responsible and liable for all acts which originate from such
publication.

In Sukhraj v. Hemraj21, the Court held that mere disclaimer on the part of publisher or author that he had no
intention to show disrespect would not be sufficient defence when the purpose and meaning of the writing is
obviously of a contrary import and contemptuous.

The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Harijai Singh v. Vijay Kumar 22 while emphasizing that a free and
indispensable to the functioning of a true democracy observed that

However, freedom of press is not absolute, unrestricted, unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as
giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled license. If it were
wholly free even from reasonable restraints, it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be
misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility

6
must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the press have to be
organised with the duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other
things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings.
If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty, it must be
punished by court of law. The editor of a newspaper or journal has a greater responsibility to guard against
untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances have a far greater circulation and
impact that the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print they are likely to be believed
by the ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are essential even for preservation of the freedom of the press
itself.

In Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 23, Bhagawati, J., found a paucity of authority in India to
guide identification of the scope and extent of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He
stated:

the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in our Constitution is based on (the
provisions in) Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States ... and it would be therefore legitimate and
proper to refer to those decisions of (the U.S. Sup. Ct.) to appreciate the true nature, scope and extent of this
right in spite of the warning administered by this Court against use of American and other cases.

The relationship and delicate balance between the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1) and the restrictions that
may validly be imposed upon them by the State, under Article 19(2) to (6) has been succinctly explained by
Seervai:

The rights represent the claims of the individual, the limitations protect the claims of other individuals and the
claims of Society or the State; to say that the rights are fundamental and the limitations are not is to destroy the
balance which article 19 was designed to achieve. To say this is not to belittle fundamental rights but only to say
that the rights are not absolute and can be enjoyed only in an orderly society.24

In the case of Nirmaljit Singh Narula vs Sh.Yashwant Singh & Ors. 25 on perusing through the content of the
website of the defendants placed on record, it appears that the defendants have a series of articles against the
plaintiff calling him names like "thug baba", "Chor", "fraud nirmal darbar", darbar as "thug darbar". Not
commenting on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the plaintiff, the defendants have in the opinion
of this court gone a step ahead of its rights of freedom of press. It also cannot be forgotten that the reach of the
internet as a medium is vast and far reaching than print and electronic and the click of a mouse can disseminate
in a split second the views of anyone.

in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.26, Venkataramiah,J.
stated:

7
"While examining the constitutionality of a law which is alleged to contravene Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution, we cannot, no doubt, be solely guided by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
of America. But in order to understand the basic principles of freedom of speech and expression and the need
for that freedom in a democratic country, we may take them into consideration. The pattern of Article 19 (1)(a)
and of Article 19 (1) (g) of our constitution is different from the pattern of the First Amendment to the American
Constitution which is almost absolute in its terms. The rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19
(1) (g) of the Constitution are to be read along with clauses (2) and (6) of Article 19 which carve out areas in
respect of which valid legislation can be made."

In case of mediums like print media, television and films, it is broadly not possible to invade privacy of
unwilling persons. By its very nature, in the mediums like newspaper, magazine, television or a movie, it is not
possible to sexually harass someone, outrage the modesty of anyone, use unacceptable filthy language and
evoke communal frenzy which would lead to serious social disorder.

In two cases, Brij Bhusan vs. the State of Delh 27i and Ramesh Thapar vs. State of Madras 28, the Supreme Court
held that censorship imposes obvious restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. After the last
amendment, censorship is permitted if it is reasonable and if it is called for in the interest of public order.

Thus the present position is censorship is valid in times of emergency if it is reasonable and if in the interest of
public order.

It has been held by the Court in the above cases that press is not immune from paying taxes, from following
labor laws, regulating services of the employees, law of contempt of the Court, law of defamation. It has been
held by the Supreme Court that right of speech and expression includes right to acquire and import ideas and
information about the matters of common interests in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India and
to answer any criticism levelled against one's views through any media [LIC vs. Union of India]

However, as no freedom is absolute, India must put restrictions on these freedoms and must apply contemporary
standards rather than international standards in determining the limits.