The Delhi High Court dismissed a 17-year-old defamation lawsuit filed against Hindustan Times. The case, initiated by an IFS officer, involved allegations against Hindustan Times, its Hindi edition Hindustan, and two editors and reporters concerning articles published in 2002.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court dismissed two defamation suits filed by Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer Mahaveer Singhvi against the Hindustan Times newspaper, its Hindi daily Hindustan, former editors Vir Sanghvi and Mrinal Pandey, and two reporters.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the 17-year-old defamation suits, noting that the three articles published by the Hindustan Times and Hindustan newspapers, not inherently defamatory in nature.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Summons Mahua Moitra in Defamation Suit
The ruling stated,
“Balancing the public’s right to information with the media’s duty of truthful reporting and an individual’s right to protect their reputation, the Court held that the articles in question are not inherently defamatory,”
Singhvi, an IFS officer from the 1999 batch, filed defamation suits against the newspapers, their editors Sanghvi and Pandey, and reporters Saurabh Shukla and Rakesh Kumar Singh.
The articles, published in 2002, claimed that Singhvi dismissed after tapes allegedly revealed misconduct and that he harassed a woman who rejected his marriage proposal.
However, the decision to terminate his services was overturned by the High Court in 2008, a ruling that later upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010.
In 2007, Singhvi filed a defamation lawsuit against Hindustan Times. Singhvi argued that the 2002 news articles severely breached journalistic standards and entirely baseless.
He claimed that the reports referenced an offensive conversation where he supposedly used expletives against a woman, asserting that such a conversation never happened.
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court determined that the articles neutrally and accurately reported the news based on verified sources.
The Court concluded,
“From the entire Article, it cannot be inferred that there were any malicious false allegations or conduct attributed to the plaintiff. Rather, the truth of initiation of an enquiry and during its pendency, discharge of the plaintiff while on Probation, is not in dispute. That a Tape containing obnoxious conversation of a woman, is also not disputed. No other facts have been mentioned in the Newspaper Article. It is evident that the reporting was a fair comment, based on their sources and was not defamatory,”
The Court noted that Singhvi might have legitimate complaints against the woman allegedly involved in the recorded conversations, but acknowledged that he already seeking separate legal action against her.
The High Court further remarked that an individual’s reputation is not so delicate that it can be destroyed by a single unpleasant incident from the early stages of their career.
The Court added,
“Reputation is what one builds over a period of time by his conduct and work. The entire incident may have left the plaintiff completely shattered and distraught, but it is his conviction in his truthfulness that gave him the courage to stand for his rights and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to win back his honour by reinstatement in his job,”
As a result, the defamation claim dismissed.
Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai, Sumer Singh Boparai, and Sadiq Noor represented the plaintiff, Mahaveer Singhvi.
Advocates M Dutta and Aditya Guha represented the defendants, which included Hindustan Times, its editors, and reporters.
Read Judgement: [Mahaveer Singhvi v Hindustan Times Limited & Ors].