Delhi HC tells Tehelka portal to pay Rs 2 crore to Army officer it maligned

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs 2 crore to an Indian Army officer for the loss of reputation caused by a 2001 “expose” by a news portal accusing him of corruption in defence procurement, saying an apology 23 years later was “not only inadequate but is meaningless”.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ordered on Friday (July 21) that the amount may be paid to Major General MS Ahluwalia by Tehelka.com, its owner Buffalo Communications, its proprietor Tarun Tejpal and reporters Aniruddha Bahal and Mathew Samuel.

The judge underlined that there cannot be a more blatant case of causing serious harm to an honest army officer’s reputation.

But the court said the officer was not able to prove any act of defamation on the part of Zee Telefilm Ltd and its officials by telecasting the story in question following an arrangement with the news portal.

Also Read: Goa court acquits journalist Tarun Tejpal of rape charges

The judge agreed that the officer’s character got maligned because of the serious allegations of corruption made out by the portal which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal.

Judge’s observation

“Truth is considered to be the best vindication against slander… Yet, truth lacks the potency to restore the reputation that one loses in eyes of a society which is always quick to judge,” the court said.

In view of the findings, damages totalling Rs 2,00,00,000/- (Rs 2 crore) was awarded to the officer along with costs of the suit, the court said.

The portal carried the new story, “Operation West End”, on March 13, 2001, alleging corruption in import of new defence equipment.

Also Read: Journalist Shahina KK wins CPJ’s International Press Freedom Award

The officer, represented by lawyer Chetan Anand, said he was defamed in the story because it said he had accepted a bribe Rs 50,000.

The court said the reporting led to a Court of Inquiry against the officer. Although no misconduct was proved, “serious displeasure” was issued against him.

“There cannot be any more blatant case of causing serious harm and injury to the reputation of an honest army officer, who despite all the endeavours of the defendant, had refused to accept any bribe,” the court said.

(With agency inputs)