Maj Gen JS Ahluwalia gets justice after 22 years, HC grants 2 crore compensation against defamation

The Delhi High Court has granted Rs 2 crore in compensation to an Indian Army officer due to the damage to his reputation caused by a news portal’s “expose” in 2001, which falsely alleged his involvement in corruption related to defence procurement.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while ruling on the lawsuit filed by Major General M S Ahluwalia, directed that Tehelka.Com, its owner M/s Buffalo Communications, its proprietor Tarun Tejpal, and two reporters, Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel, must pay the awarded amount.

The judge remarked that this case was an evident example of serious harm caused to the reputation of an honest army officer and that an apology after 22 years of publication was insufficient and meaningless.

However, the court found no evidence of defamation by Zee Telefilm Ltd and its officials for telecasting the story after an arrangement with the news portal.

The court noted that the plaintiff not only suffered a loss of esteem in the eyes of the public but also faced severe allegations of corruption that could not be redressed or healed by any subsequent refutation.

The court emphasized that though truth is the best defense against slander, it cannot fully restore the reputation that one loses in the eyes of society, which is quick to judge. The scar on one’s reputation remains, even if reparation is granted.

The court ruled that Rs 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crore) in damages be paid by tehelka.com and its owners for causing defamation, along with costs of the suit.

On March 13, 2001, the news portal had published a story alleging corruption in defence deals related to the import of new defence equipment.

The plaintiff Major General M S Ahluwalia, represented by lawyer Chetan Anand, claimed that he was defamed in the story “Operation West End” as it falsely broadcasted and reported that he had accepted a bribe.

The court rejected the defendants’ defenses of “truth,” “public good,” and “good faith,” stating that there could not be a worse defamation to a person of integrity than falsely imputing that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 50,000.

The court observed that the consequence of such reporting was the initiation of a Court of Inquiry against the plaintiff, and though no misconduct was proven, “serious displeasure” was issued against him.

The court concluded that the comments made by defendant No. 3 Aniruddha Bahal were false and defamatory, and despite the defendant’s endeavors, the honest army officer refused to accept any bribe, establishing a case of defamation and entitling him to damages.