verdict-plan man media vs jspl

7/27/2019 Verdict-Plan Man Media vs JSPL

1/15

A complaint filed against Plan Man Media Pvt Ltd i.e owners of the Magazine The Sunday Indian: MrArndam Chaudhury, Editor In Chief; Mr A Sandeep, Editor; Mr Ashok Bose, Publisher of The SundayIndian by M/S Jindal Steel and Power Limited regarding two stories published in The Sunday Indiantitled Shooting the Messenger Literally-After Khap and Coalgate Now Naveen Jindal spars with Zeeand The Hounding of Zee dated 04.11.2012 and 23.12.2012 respectively.

The court observed Now coming to the allegations regarding defamatory statements made in thearticles against JSPL/ its management regarding the allocation of coal blocks. To determine whetherthey are defamatory or not, it is important to understand the nature and context of those allegationsand the same cannot be considered in a piece-meal fashion or as existing in isolation or in vacuum.

India is the largest democracy in the world and free press is one of the very important pillars on whichthe foundation of rule of law and democracy rests. The purpose of the press is to advance public interestby publishing facts and opinions without which democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. The people have a right to be informed of the developments that take place in a democraticprocess and press plays a very vital role in disseminating this information. The freedom must howeverexercised with circumspection and care and must be taken not to trench of the right of the other citizenor to jeopardize public interest.

Now reverting to the articles at hand, the tone and tenor of the articles only convey generalobservations regarding a current topic of general/ national interest. There is nothing contained in thesaid articles which is especially meant to damage the reputation of the complainant. The AR of thecomplainant has placed on record the CAG report which according to him does not indict the JSPL of anymalpractices and only goes on to say that there should be a process of bringing in transparency andobjectivity in the allocation process of coal blocks and the government could have tapped a part of thisfinancial benefit by expediting decision on competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks and ahdrecommended that the ministry of coal should implement the procedure of allocation of coal blocks forcaptive mining through competitive bidding.

The perusal of the CAG report filed on record by the complainant himself discloses that JSPL was one of the highest beneficiaries and if the CAG report is to be believed then it is clear that the allocation of coalblocks was not based on any set procedure of competitive bidding. Thus , it is the case of thecomplainant himself that the coal blocks were not auctioned to the allottes through competitive biddingbut on the basis of some external and extraneous factors. Thus, as per the case of the complainanthimself fair practice of allotment of coal blocks has not been restored to by the government / concernedministry and some persons have been advantaged more than others without resorting to the fair

procedure of competitive bidding. Thus a procedure adopted itself smacks of illegality. Although,pronouncing a verdict on the propriety or otherwise of the method used for coal block allocation by thegovernment is beyond the purview of this Courts deliberation. It would not be out of place to mentionthat the probe regarding illegal allocation of coal blocks is still pending and any media coverage on thisaspect is invariably likely to refer to JSPL-its alleged involvement and as one of the highest beneficiariesin the coal block allocations.


2/15

In democratic India, media has virtually evolved as the fourth pillar of the Constitution and plays a veryvital role in forming public opinion in favour or against the government policies and in exposing orsurfacing the corrupt practices where they exist.

In the present case the readers have a right to know regarding the entire controversy surrounding theallocation of coal blocks.

The Court has to protect the media as they have a moral, legal and social duty to perform, if what ispublished is in public interest or public good and is based on a factual report which though may becapable of being perceived differently by different individuals.

One must not forget that the country is striding towards an era where the right to information and theright to know have been given statutory backing and are constantly evolving. In these circumstances anyaction towards gagging the free media would push the country back to the colonial dark ages of closed

doors and hushed up voices.

Further, it is settled law that issuance of process should not be mechanical or should not be aninstrument of oppression or needless harassment.

To summon someone to face criminal trial is a serious matter and cannot be ordered as a matter of course. Though the defences against defamation can be taken by the accused at an appropriate stageafter they have been summoned by the court. But the court should remain mindful and conscious thatno person should be summoned unless and until a prima facie case exists against him. In the opinionof this court there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the present complaint or forissuance of summons against the persons arrayed as the accused. Hence the present complaint ishereby dismissed .


3/15


4/15


5/15


6/15


7/15


8/15


9/15


10/15


11/15


12/15


13/15


14/15


15/15

verdict-plan man media vs jspl

Documents