The Madras High Court dismisses a defamation petition against the Tamil biweekly Junior Vikatan for an article it published on the pollution threat by a company.
THE Madras High Court has held that freedom of the press, which is included in the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, "gives (the press) a privilege in such matters even to exaggerate or play down to a small extent, provided it is only in the interest of the public at large". Justice A.K. Rajan made this observation while dismissing a suit filed by Chemfab Alkalies Limited, Kalapet, near Pondicherry, claiming damages of Rs.15 lakhs from Junior Vikatan, a Tamil biweekly, for publishing what was described as a defamatory article. "So long as there is no malice, it does not amount to libel," the Judge ruled.
The article dealt with the pollution threat from Chemfab Alkalies and other chemical units situated in the area. Justice Rajan said the intention of the article appeared to be to draw public attention to the issue of pollution and avert any chance of a tragedy similar to the one that struck Bhopal. The article might at the most amount to criticising officials for their inaction in enforcing pollution control measures. He said that "democracy cannot survive in the absence of freedom of speech", and that such freedom could not be exercised if criticising officers culminated in a decree of libel. "The minimum guarantee of freedom of speech is an unconditional right to say what one feels about a public affair. The press, therefore, has an unconditional right to criticise on a public affair. So long as there is no malice, it does not amount to libel," he added.
The defendants were Junior Vikatan's Editor S. Balasubramanian and the publishers, Vasan Publications, Chennai. The judgment was delivered on August 21, 2001.
The Chemfab group manufactured chemicals such as caustic soda and chlorine at Kalapet. The University of Pondicherry put up the Srinivasa Ramanujan Academic Complex close to the factory. The faculty members and other staff of the university complained to the Vice-Chancellor about air and water pollution caused by the chemical factories in the neighbourhood. Chemfab wrote to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar on February 12, 1990, on its pollution control efforts and invited university representatives to visit the factory. Thereafter the university ceased making complaints. The factory had received the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) award in 1989 for its contribution to environmental pollution control.
According to Chemfab's complaint, on February 20, 1990, B. Ganapathy Subramaniam, a Junior Vikatan reporter, met the company's president, S.E. Manohar, who explained to him the pollution control methods adopted by the company. Junior Vikatan issue dated March 7, 1990, had on its cover a photograph showing the Chemfab factory, its nameboard with a red skull and cross bones superimposed on it and with the legend, "Poison gas danger" and "Villagers are trembling". The article described the factory as a pollution hazard. The denials made by the company were not given prominence, the complaint said.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had been negligent in publishing the article without ascertaining from the pollution control authorities whether the factory indeed posed an environmental hazard. It contained "meaningless" interviews with students or laypersons and so it could not be construed that publication was made in good faith, it said.
The defendants argued that the article constituted only fair comment made in the public interest. It was written to attract the attention of the authorities to the possibility of high rates of pollution and with a view to avoiding another tragedy like the one at Bhopal. It mainly contained allegations made by other agencies. The facts were verified by interviewing a number of people and the authorities. Pollution had affected the locality and it was necessary to inform the public what was happening, they argued.
They said the public complained about the health hazards from pollution. As a champion of public causes, the defendants had a duty to draw the authorities' attention to these. The impugned article also contained the views of the company's president, which established the defendants' bona fides. The article, therefore, could not be said to be defamatory, the defendants argued.
In his order, the Judge said the contents of the article, including the cover, should be seen as one whole. At the end of the words "Trembling villagers" on the cover, there was a question mark followed by an exclamation mark. The effect of the question mark was to wonder "whether the villagers are trembling". The exclamation mark showed surprise that such a situation could exist. Both together conveyed the meaning, "Is it true that the villagers are trembling with fear and whether such a situation could exist?" The legend, "Caution report", cautioned the authorities and the people to be vigilant in order to avoid a mishap. The Judge said: "It cannot be said that the article asserts that the villagers are trembling with fear. All that it conveys is that if a poisonous gas escapes, there is a likelihood of danger to the lives of people."
If the article was read in its entirety without any bias, its intention appeared to be only to caution the people to be vigilant and the authorities to enforce the law strictly. "The article, therefore, has been published in the interest of the public, and in good faith," the Judge ruled. The article conformed to various criteria of fairness in matters such as the source of information, the steps taken to verify it, the status of the information, whether comment has been sought from the plaintiff and whether the article contains the gist of the plaintiff's version. So the article was entitled to qualified privilege, the Judge ruled.
In a country like India where most people were not aware of their rights, if such public criticism was curtailed the result would be disastrous, observed the Judge.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE