A Delhi court directed Hindustan Times and ex-reporter Neelesh Misra to pay Rs 40 lakh to businessman Arun Kumar Gupta for wrongly reporting that he was sacked over financial issues. The Court ruled it defamed Gupta and lacked factual proof.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court ordered the popular newspaper Hindustan Times and its former journalist Neelesh Misra to pay Rs 40 lakh in compensation to a businessman named Arun Kumar Gupta. This is because of a false news article that was published back in January 2007.
The article wrongly claimed that Gupta was “sacked” from his earlier company due to “alleged financial irregularities“.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
The court, under District Judge Prabh Deep Kaur, said that Hindustan Times must pay 75% of the total amount (Rs 30 lakh), and Neelesh Misra will have to pay the remaining 25% (Rs 10 lakh).
The Court also ordered the newspaper to issue a public apology within 60 days. Additionally, it said that Hindustan Times should not publish anything in the future that defames Arun Kumar Gupta.
Arun Kumar Gupta was working as a Director in a company named Integrix from the year 2000. He left the job in July 2005 to start his own company called Darts IT Network. After his exit, in March and April 2006, Integrix filed two legal cases against him. These were regarding a defamatory email and hacking of its website. Later, on the Delhi High Court’s order, it was found that the IP address linked to these acts was connected to Gupta.
Then, in January 2007, a news article written by Neelesh Misra appeared in Hindustan Times. Although the article did not take Gupta’s name directly, it clearly implied that he was sacked from Integrix due to financial irregularities. Gupta filed a defamation case against Hindustan Times, Neelesh Misra, Integrix, its directors, and their lawyer. However, he later settled the matter with everyone—except Hindustan Times and Misra.
The defendants (Misra and the newspaper) argued that the news article was based on “credible information” from sources. They said that the report was backed by documents, including the suits filed by Integrix against Gupta.
They also claimed that Gupta was not the main subject of the article. Instead, the article was meant to discuss the legal situation of electronic communication (emails) in general and was published “in public interest“.
But the Court took a different view. It first pointed out that Gupta had already settled the legal cases with Integrix. So, he could not now argue that the allegations in those cases were false.
The judge also said that media has the right to report on ongoing legal cases.
However, the key point was that the article claimed Gupta was fired for financial wrongdoings—something the Court found had no basis in fact.
“I have perused pleadings as well as ordersheet of both suit no. I and II. Surprisingly, in both the plaints, defendant no. 2 [Integrix] company had categorically stated that ‘plaintiff herein had resigned from the company and there were no allegations of financial irregularities against the plaintiff herein nor it was mentioned that plaintiff was sacked /removed as stated in the impugned article. Further, from the perusal of record of suit no. I and II it is clear that till the publication of impugned article on 29.01.2007, there was nothing on record in the judicial record of both suits alleging any financial irregularities committed by the plaintiff herein while he was a director in the defendant no. 2 company.’”
So, the judge said that the claim about Gupta being sacked for irregularities was not supported by any document, record, or proof. The report was based on unnamed sources, and neither Misra nor Hindustan Times submitted anything to back their claim.
When Misra and the newspaper argued that Gupta wasn’t even named in the article, the Court responded by pointing out that Gupta’s witnesses confirmed they could clearly identify the article was referring to him. The report damaged his reputation as people linked him to it.
The judge firmly rejected the paper’s claim that this was just fair reporting.
“Reporting in the article that plaintiff was sacked for alleged financial irregularities without any substance or material to give that opinion, is equivalent to character assassination for which no benefit can be given to the defendant no. 1 and 7.”
The Court also didn’t accept their excuse that there was no bad intention (malice) behind the article. In the end, the judge found both Hindustan Times and Neelesh Misra guilty of defaming Arun Kumar Gupta. Although Gupta had asked for Rs 1 crore in damages, the Court awarded him Rs 40 lakh.
“Plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs. 40 lacs. Defendant no. 1 will pay 3/4th amount of the compensation to plaintiff and defendant no. 7 will pay 1/4th amount of compensation to the plaintiff,”
-the Court ruled.
The judge also clarified why Hindustan Times had to bear a larger portion of the fine than its former reporter. The Court said that a big media organisation has more responsibility.
“An institution is always bigger than an individual person and as is said ‘higher the power, higher the responsibility’. A big institution like defendant no. 1 is supposed to have a check upon the reports/news articles prepared by an individual reporter. The institution has higher accountability because institution generally has many check posts, many barriers before the matter is reported or a task is completed.”
In this case, Arun Kumar Gupta represented himself in court. On the other side, lawyers Sanjeev Behl, Madhur Dhingra, and Kunal Rai appeared for Hindustan Times and Neelesh Misra.
CASE TITLE:
Arun Kumar Gupta vs HT Media Limited and Others
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Hindustan Times
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
