Key General M.S. Ahluwalia v. Tehelka.com & Ors

Main Normal M.S. Ahluwalia v. Tehelka.com & Ors.
In the Large Court docket of Delhi
Review Petition 230/2023, IA 16702-16703/2023 and CS (OS) 622/2002
Ahead of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decided on September 01, 2023

Relevancy of the situation: Applicability of Portion 65B of the Indian Proof Act, 1872, in a defamation accommodate involving the guide planning of editorial remarks from recorded conversations

Statutes and Provisions Associated

• The Code of Civil Course of action, 1908 (Part 114, Segment 151, Buy XLVII Rule 1)
• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 3, 58, 65B(4))
• The Details Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(1)(t))

Appropriate Points of the Circumstance

• Tehelka is a effectively-identified identify for its investigative journalism and sting functions. In the Operation West Stop sting operation, two of its journalists worked as reps of a fictitious London-based defence machines company. They sought to introduce new defence equipment to the Indian Military and fulfilled the plaintiff inevitably.
• The journal posted an post detailing the journalists’ conversation with the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded a bribe of ₹10 lakhs, a bottle of Blue Label whiskey, and accepted a token bribe of ₹50,000.
• After the publication of this report, the CBI submitted a scenario in opposition to the plaintiff under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the Military Court experienced also court docket-martialled him. Nevertheless, the Army Main acquitted him and awarded ‘Severe Displeasure’ status.
• In 2002, the plaintiff lodged a defamation circumstance in opposition to the journal, its journalists, and the Chairman/CEO of Zee Television. Zee Tv experienced broadcasted the string procedure on its information channel.
• The defendant (critique petitioner) has filed this assessment petition from the court’s order directing it to pay out ₹2 crores as damages.

Distinguished Arguments by the Advocates

• The review petitioner’s counsel argued that the oral evidence without having a certificate offered by the respondent would not be enough as for every Portion 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Feeling of the Bench

• A party can only file a assessment petition in case of factual mistakes. A courtroom will not entertain evaluation apps to proper the observations created throughout the judgment.
• Portion 65B of the Indian Proof Act, 1872, is not legitimate in the offered situation. The 2nd petitioner experienced manually published the entire transcript and editorial remarks. Hence, they are not electronically produced.
• The court would look at it as a mere doc and not electronic evidence. The petitioners have not questioned the authenticity as a result, it is admissible in the court docket.
• The Army Court docket had acquitted the plaintiff and only awarded “Severe Displeasure” for his carry out. It was not for accepting dollars, as alleged in the editorial responses. The petitioners could not spotlight the oversight that could be corrected in just the ambit of overview but instead argued about the authenticity of the transcripts.
• Defamation law is not towards media publications. On the other hand, if not carried out in good religion, it may perhaps direct to defamation mainly because the induce of community fantastic and reasonable remark will not justify an untrue statement.

Last Final decision

• The bench dismissed the evaluate petition.

---

Adyasha Sahoo, an undergraduate pupil at the Institute of Legislation, Nirma College Ahmedabad, well prepared this scenario summary through her internship with The Cyber Site India in January/February 2024.