The Supreme Court has directed former chancellor Firoz Bakht Ahmed to tender an unconditional apology to Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan for calling him a “sexual predator.” The court also ordered Ahmed to publish the apology in Daily Eenadu and pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony caused by the defamatory remark.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed Firoz Bakht Ahmed, the former chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University, to issue an unconditional apology to a fellow professor for making a defamatory remark. Ahmed had described Professor Ehtesham Ahmad Khan, the Head of the Media Centre of Journalism, as a “sexual predator,” which led to a series of legal proceedings.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and P K Mishra emphasized that Ahmed should have considered the consequences of his remark before making such a serious allegation. The bench pointed out,
“Since now the appellant has realized his mistake and is willing to tender an unconditional apology, we find that it will be in the interest of both the parties to put an end to the criminal proceedings as well as other proceedings pending between them.”
As per the court’s directive, Ahmed must publish his unconditional apology in bold letters on the first page of the “Daily Eenadu” newspaper within a four-week period. This public apology serves as a formal retraction of the defamatory comment.
“The appellant shall give unconditional apology to the respondent No.2 (Khan). The appellant shall publish the said unconditional apology by giving an advertisement in bold letters in Daily Eenadu on the first page of the newspaper, within a period of four weeks from today,”
stated the Supreme Court’s October 14 order.
In addition to the apology, the court has also ordered Ahmed to pay Rs 1 lakh as a token amount for the mental distress caused to Professor Khan due to the wild allegations. “The said amount be paid by way of a Demand Draft in favour of respondent No.2 herein, within a period of four weeks from today,” the bench ruled. This amount is intended as a symbolic compensation for the mental agony suffered by Khan.
Emotional Outburst or Intentional Harm?
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, representing Ahmed, argued that her client had made the “sexual predator” remark during an emotional outburst and did not intend to damage Professor Khan’s reputation. According to Makhija, the statement was made in the heat of the moment, without the intention of causing harm or tarnishing Khan’s professional standing.
On the other hand, Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing Professor Khan, insisted that Ahmed had made the wild allegations with full knowledge of the consequences. Srinivasan argued that the former chancellor’s remarks were deliberate and that he should not be granted leniency by the court.
“The appellant with full understanding of the consequences had chosen to make such wild allegations and deserves no leniency,”
he said.
The Legal Battle So Far
The dispute arose after Ahmed made the controversial statement during a media interaction, calling Khan a “sexual predator.” This followed an incident where Professor Khan was discharged of sexual harassment allegations in a prior case. Despite this, Ahmed used the same damaging term to describe him, which led to the legal battle.
The Telangana High Court, in its April 24, 2023 ruling, had refused to quash the proceedings against Ahmed. The High Court found that even though Khan had been cleared of the sexual harassment allegations, the defamatory phrase continued to be used against him by Ahmed. The Supreme Court was hearing Ahmed’s challenge to this ruling when it issued its latest order.
Read Also: “The Blindfold Has Come Off”: A New Vision of Justice at the Supreme Court
In its judgment, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending in Rajendranagar court, putting an end to the legal dispute between the two parties. However, the apex court upheld the need for the public apology and financial compensation, emphasizing the importance of accountability for public statements.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the serious consequences of defamation and the importance of exercising caution in making public allegations. The case has highlighted the role of the courts in balancing freedom of expression with the protection of individuals’ reputations.
As Ahmed prepares to issue his unconditional apology and settle the financial penalty, the case draws attention to the ongoing challenges faced by public figures in navigating the consequences of their statements and maintaining accountability for their actions.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES