Justice Sachin Datta said that the article is a “litany of misrepresentations and convoluted insinuations made in a reckless manner, without any regard for the truth, and with a view to inflict damage” Kumar’s reputation.
The Court said that while freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct, the reputation of a person earned over several decades cannot be sacrificed at the altar of such freedom.
It noted that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that Kumar interfered with the quasi-judicial function of the concerned District Magistrate and yet the article seeks to castigate Kumar as to how he “may have handled the matter”.
“The article/defamatory publication further proceeds to suggest that plaintiff has a potential “conflict of interest in the matter”. Again, this insinuation is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as enhancement of compensation was an outcome of arbitration proceedings, in which the plaintiff was clearly not involved.”
Source: Barandbench
