ENGLISHMAN, LTD Vs. LAJPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of this Court in its Original jurisdiction, under which the plaintiff was awarded damages to the extent of Rs. 15,000 for libel.

(2.) The libel was in the following terms: It is about time now that the true facts as to the deportation of Lajpat Rai were given out. Last year the native officers of several of the native regiments in the Punjab confidentially reported to their commanding officer that persistent efforts were being made to tamper with the loyalty of the sepoys. In due course the commanding officer reported this to the higher military authorities. At the beginning of this year the native officers of almost every native regiment reported to their commanding officers that the provisions of the Canal Colonies Bill were being used most effectively by the agitators to inflame the sepoys against the Government, and in this connection the names of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh were given as the principal agitators. It must be remembered that the Canal colonists are mostly old soldiers, therefore in close touch with the sepoys. The native officers further urged that unless the provisions of the Canal Colonies Legislation were vetoed they could not answer for the loyalty of the native army in the Punjab. The commanding officers confidentially told Lord Kitchener that unless the Canal Colony Legislation was vetoed, and Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh arrested, they could not answer the loyalty of the native army in the Punjab. Lord Kitchener lost no time in seeing Lord Minto, and the latter at once telegraphed to the civil authorities in the Punjab for corroboration of these alarmist reports. The civil authorities at Lahore were already in a panic as to the occurrences at Lyallpur and promptly confirmed all Lord Kitchener;s statements, but they demurred to the vetoing of the Canal Colonies Legislation, and said the deportation of Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh would be sufficient. Lord Minto was inclined to side with the civil authorities in the Punjab, but Lord Kitchener put his foot down and said that if the Canal Colony Legislation was not vetoed, and Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh deported, he would resign as a protest. As neither Lord Minto nor Mr. Morley dared allow Lord Kitchener to resign, the Canal Colony Legislation was promptly vetoed and Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh deported. I assert the truth of these statements in spite of any official denials. A long residence in India has taught me that between an official denial and a terminological inexactitude there is a distinction without any real difference. Anyway these statements explain the silence of Mr. Morley about Lala Lajpat Rai under the daily heckling he has endured in Parliament for months past. My only reason for now publishing these statements is the half promise given by Mr. Morley in Parliament for the release of Lajpat Rai. That Lajpat Rai has been guilty of tampering with the loyalty of the Punjabi sepoy there can be no possibility of doubt, and, therefore, his release for years to come would only be a dangerous act of criminal folly. The very virtues of Lajpat Rai only make him more dangerous, and it is the half-religious, half-political fanatics to this half-sane, half-mad brand that are always the most dangerous conspirators.

(3.) The defendants admitted publication and alleged that, in so far as the libel consisted of allegations of fact, it was true; and in so far as it consisted of expressions of opinion, they were a matter of fair comment on a question of public interest.