On September 10, 2008, TIMES NOW telecast a story about the Ghaziabad district court Provident Fund Scam wherein Justice P K Samantha, a serving judge of the Calcutta High Court, was alleged to have been involved.
While airing the said story, it inadvertently showed the picture of Sawant. This happened only once for 15 seconds only. The channel telecast apology on its scroll, though belatedly, from September 23 for five days.
While airing the said story, it inadvertently showed the picture of Sawant. This happened only once for 15 seconds only. The channel telecast apology on its scroll, though belatedly, from September 23 for five days.
Justice (retd.) P B Sawant filed a suit on November 13, 2008 for defamation and on April 26, 2011, the court delivered its judgment awarding Rs 100 crore to him.
Never mind Countless defamation cases that are pending for decades. Consider S Nambi Narayanan, head of ISRO was charged with selling secrets, put behind bars & tortured. The CBI found the whole case against him false. Narayanan filed a defamation suit of Rs 1 crore in 1999 which is pending since then.shows
This shows that if the judiciary wants, cases can be disposed of expeditiously. But for that one has to a former judge of the apex court or a VIP.
Besides, this case also raises the paramount question of freedom of press. News reporting is a work done in haste, and errors do creep in inadvertently. However, it should not be malicious or deliberate. If a channel or a newspaper has to cough up Rs 100 crore for a slight error because of phonetic similarity in names (Samantha and Sawant), it will not be feasible to run a channel or a newspaper.
Further compare the amount of Rs. 100 Crore compensation awarded to the Judge to that of innumerable cases where compensations are a pittance. Consider the case of Bhopal gas tragedy victims. They were awarded Rs.58156/= by Supreme Court! This despite the channel apologising for the inadvertent mix up on its scroll for five days. . The life of a common man is worth much less compared to the dignity of a former judge that too when it is not even certain that his reputation was actually damaged.
This shows that if the judiciary wants, huge compensation can be allowed, but for that one has to a former judge of the apex court or a VIP.
(From the article “Damages and compensation” by Sudhanshu Ranjan in DH dated 25.11.2011) |
No comments:
Post a Comment