Sahara India gets a stay on the publication of a book, Praful Patel
gets a publisher to withdraw yet another book from circulation. How do
you keep the wealthy and the powerful accountable if they can thwart
painstaking exposés on corporate and political misgovernance?
A HOOT editorial. PIX: Praful Patel
Posted/Updated
Thursday, Jan 16 15:38:51, 2014
The
concept of libel chill is little discussed in India but perhaps it
should be as we see more and more evidence of it. Recent examples of
lawsuits initiated to thwart or penalise publication fall in two
categories. One is legal action aimed at publication in media or
broadcasts on TV channels, and the other is increasing instances of
books not being published or withdrawn after publication. In the first
instance, the action is against a media house or group, in the second, against an individual author.
There
is the threat of legal action on grounds of defamation, and there is
the seeking of punitive damages whose figures are reaching astonishing
proportions. When PB Sawant sued Times Now for damages in 2011 it was
not a classic case of libel chill, no publication was sought to be
suppressed. Yet it evoked dismay in the media community for seeming to
be far out of proportion to the damage caused by the fleeting use of the
photograph of a wrong person. Few noted the irony when the parent
group of Times Now later the same year sent legal notices seeking the
same sum of Rs 100 crore in damages from an online publication called The Weekend Leader (in 2011) for an article it carried related to the Chennai Times of India’s coverage
of the Mullaiperiyar dam controversy. And from the Hoot for asking how a
TV crew from Times Now happened to be present when lawyer Prashant
Bhushan was being beaten up in his chamber by goons (also in 2011).
2012
saw Politician Louise Khurshid claim Rs 100 crore in damages against
the TV Today group for telecasting allegations of financial
irregularities in a trust run by her and her husband, minister Salman
Khurshid.
And
2013 brings us to the other category of libel chill where books are not
published or withdrawn after publication because the subjects of their
research object to revelations made. The problem goes beyond free
speech to inhibiting research and investigation of corporate misdemeanor
and misuse of power by those in office. In the first case, Jitendra
Bhargava who retired as executive director of Air India after serving it
for two decades wrote a book called Descent of Air India which
made some revelations about the way then civil aviation minister Praful
Patel had caused losses to the airline. Patel alleged that the book was
defamatory, after it was released in October, and tried to stop its
sales. He filed a case in the court of the
metropolitan magistrate, Mumbai. The publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing
India Pvt Ltd has now apologised to Patel and withdrawn the book, saying
it will destroy stocks available with it.
The author told Moneylife, "As everything stated in the book is true, based on documents, I will have the book, 'The Descent of Air India' reprinted either on my own or through a new publisher.”
In
the second instance towards the end of last year, Sahara India and
Subroto Roy Sahara filed a case against Tamal Bandopadhyay, journalist
and author and his publisher Jaico India under clause 12 of the Letters
Patent and claims. They asked for damages of Rs 200 crore and a
perpetual injunction restraining them from publishing or circulating or
releasing the book, 'Sahara : The Untold $tory' in any form.
Bandopadhyay’s
book was researched keeping Sahara India and Roy in the picture, his
interview with Subrato Roy for the book has already been published in
Mint where he is deputy managing editor. Pre-publication, however, the
publisher sent a copy of the book to Sahara and Roy who responded with
alacrity, seeking to stop the book by filing a case in the Calcutta high
court, whereas the author is in Delhi and the complainant is
headquartered in Lucknow.
The
complaint filed in the High Court says, “such publication if allowed to
be made would permanently damage the goodwill and reputation not only
of the plaintiffs but the entire Sahara Group.” The court admitted the
lawsuit and granted an ex parte stay on publication in December, there
will be further hearings this month.
The
plea filed in the Calcutta high court lists in detail several
observations in the book which the plaintiffs consider injurious to the
reputation of the company and its chairman or Managing Worker as Mr
Subrata Roy has styled himself.
The
Rs 200 crore suit is the highest damages sought so far from a
journalist in India. When the judiciary admits demands for very high
damages against an individual author or journalist can it end up
thwarting professional journalistic pursuit? Other societies are looking
at a cap on how much the media can be sued for so that it does not
become a disincentive to investigative journalism or research. English
libel law reform campaigners for instance have sought a cap of 10,000
pounds on damages that can be sought for loss of reputation. The
judiciary here should consider the same. A judge also has the option of
ordering the parties concerned to sit down and negotiate on objections
to specific parts of a manuscript rather than allowing a blanket ban on
publication.
It
can hardly be disputed that Sahara’s business practices are
controversial. The corporation was pulled up by the Supreme Court only a
few days ago for stonewalling in response to information sought by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India about their claim to have
returned 90 percent of Rs.24,000 crore collected from investors.
How
does a society keep the wealthy and the powerful accountable if the
courts allow them to thwart painstaking research on corporate and
political misgovernance? If libel chill is allowed to take hold here
what price the political reform movement against corruption?
Post a Comment