SARDAR CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. ARUN PURIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for perpetual injunction filed on the 5th February, 1982 for restraining the defendants-respondent? from printing and publishing the threatened article and further restraining them from circulating for sale or otherwise the Magazine 'India Today' containing the said article regarding the plaintiff, an application for temporary injunction under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was allowed by the trial Court but on appeal it was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, this revision. ......under Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of India, that he is the Managing Director of Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., that he was elected in 1980 as Member of Parliament and has very high status, associated with social, political, cultural and financial institutions, that defendant- respondent No. 7 'India Today' is a magazine of which defendant-respondent No. 1 is the Editor. Defendants-respondents 2 to 6 are the Managing Editor, Senior Editor, Correspondent and Publisher respectively of the magazine, that the defendants and vested interests were trying to throw mud on him in one way or the other, that on 21st January, 1982 defendant No. 4, a correspondent of the said magazine wrote a letter to his Secretary requiring him to furnish answeis to certain questions designed to malign, defame and to downgrade his financial, social, political and moral esteem in the eyes of the general public. He pleads that the said questionnarie is mala fide and has been framed with a view to mislead the general public and to malign and defame him, that he Was not under a duty to send reply, that on 2nd February, 1982 defendant-respondent No. 3 sent another letter asking him to send his comments by 4 P.M. on 5th February, 1982 falling which the defendants threatened to print their own story about him. The plaintiff further pleads that the two letters require him to reveal his business interests/secrets to the public, that the publication of any story on the basis of the said questionnaire would defame him and cause serious damage to his reputation. He also pleads his reply to the said questionnaire dated 21st January, 1982 in para 9 of the plaint and says that the threatened article would be outside the scope of lair comment as envisaged by the freedom of press. He, therefore, prays for the grant of a decree for perpetual injunction and for interim injunction till the decision of the suit restraining the defendants from printing and publishing the threatend article about him alleging that he has a prima facie case, that he would suffer irreparable injury and the balance of convenience is in his favour.

(3.) The defendants in the written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction besides other defences mainly plead that it is 88 not open to the court to grant perpetual or temporary injunction against the publication of an article which is yet to be written, that any such order would be a violation of the Fundamental Rights granted under Article 19 of the Constitution and would amount to pre-censorship, that the suit is not maintainable since compensation in money would be adequate relief in the event of alleged threatened injury to the plaintiff They admit that the letter dated 21stJanuary, 1982 i.e. the questionnaire at his request was sent to the plaintiff as defendant No. 4, on being deputed by defendants I to 3, was intending to write an article of public interest in which the plaintiff was concerned, for publication, in the magazine India Today', that defendant No. 4 wanted to have comments from the plaintiff on various reports/criticisms that had been raised in the past in the press and in the Parliament, that the questions merely summarised the issues forming the substance of the various criticisms, that the questions were neither to mislead the public nor to malign or defame the plaintiff, that they wished only to write a well. researched balanced article after taking into account plaintiff's views on matters of public debate and discussion. They further plead that the two letters did not contain any threat to the plaintiff, that there was nothing illegal or improper in requesting him to give his version on the questions sent to him as on his own admission he was a public figure and a Member of Parliament and his conduct has been a matter of public interest, debate and discussion both in Parliament and the Press, that they were performing public duty in the exercise of their freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to them under Article 19 of the Constitution. The defendants deny that they asked questions in the letter dated 21stJanuary, 1982 to harass, malign or defame the petitioner. They further states that they did not propose or threat to publish the questionnaire and intend to defend the article to be published on grounds of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege, that the suit and the application were premature and no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff.