After considering the case, the High Court said that the newspaper articles have, in a neutral or truthful manner, simply reported the news based on the information collected from the verified sources.
“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 held.
The Court added that Singhvi may have a genuine grievance against the woman whose conversations were allegedly contained in the tapes, but noted that he is already pursuing an independent remedy against her.
The High Court also observed that a person’s reputation is not so fragile that it becomes undone by an unsavoury incident from years earlier, at the beginning of one’s career.
“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,” the Court added.
It, therefore, rejected the defamation plea.
Source: Barandbench
