 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Paranjwari Guha Thakurtha and we are going to discuss the issue of Deformation suits against media organizations that have been instituted by the Anil Ambani group With me here in the studio. I'm happy to have Apar Gupta. He's an advocate. He's been working on Free speech issues for some years now He was part of the constitutional challenge to criminal deformation in the Supreme Court helped Member of Parliament, Tathagat Satpati, Draft, the private members bill seeking to decriminalize Defamation. Apar, this These two defamation suits that have been instituted by the Reliance Dhirubhai Ambani group headed by Mr. Anil Ambani against NDTV and Against the citizen in one case 10,000 crore in another case 7,000 crore For writing reporting analyzing the raffle deal the raffle scandal Would you describe this as a classic slap or a strategic litigation against public participation aimed at intimidating and harassing these media organizations. I think it's much more than a slap. It's a punch. So What are slap suits it's necessary for people to first understand it Paranjwari Now when defamation cases or the manhani case They come in two varieties A civil who has people asking for money to claim the court and the second is when they File a criminal case which is called a complaint case They don't go to the police but they go to the criminal court Both cases but you can go to jail. You can go to jail for two years You can go to jail but it's a bailable offense. So it means when the defendant comes to court for the first time Then he takes the bail but then he has to keep the lawyer in the court and these Provisals are going on for many years. So it affects a lot of people But today we will only talk about the civil case because as you are saying slap suits When filed then they can be done as a civil or a criminal But Anil Ambani ji has done the civil manhani case But these amounts Against NGTV, 10,000 crore, 7,000 crore against the citizens And both these cases have been lodged in Ahmedabad at the High Court of Gujarat Now don't you think there should be some sort of a restriction some of the High Courts say that if you Seek damages worth a certain amount of money Then you have to put a certain amount a proportion of that amount as court fees now It seems Ahmedabad doesn't have such a rule and you have to deposit a flat fee Correct me if I'm wrong of 25,000 rupees. Is this the reason why Ahmedabad has been selected? No, there may be several reasons The first thing is that the defendant has a process in the case of the manhani case Because we all know that the Indian court will not give money to the person or the court It will take years So the process becomes a punishment In which if you are an arope, you are not a convict yet Means the court has not said that this arope has been proved But as long as it goes on, someone will have to follow up on the case of an NDTV reporter, an editor, a defendant But they will have to follow up on the case But they will have to go there They will have to go there and talk to the lawyers It is not a formal requirement that there is personal attendance in the civil case But it is a criminal case But it is a criminal case In the civil case, only they have to verify the pleading But they go back once and go straight to the amounts Because the most important thing in the media and the church Is that in the thousands of crores, what difference does it make? And if the amount of the anilambani is as much as it is, they will get the money Ultimately, if it does not happen, the court will call them and leave them What difference does it make? The difference is that NDTV is a news organization And there is a very good president in the United States Which is called New York Times versus Sullivan It was a constitutional court case In this, the U.S. servoche Naila had said that If the defamation causes a public figure or public interest in your speech Then damages cannot be excessive If you are a decent person, then it is not that you will close your business Why? Because many times what the journalists write is wrong Because the public personalities, the public officials They do not give any information And we know what the RTI is like in India So if you write 1.5 instead of 1 Then it is your fault It can be a decent person But your entire business and your entire work should not be done So the point you are saying is that as in the Sullivan case Sullivan versus New York Times case Which you claim to be more than that in the case of Honey Yes Now tell me one more thing which is called a chilling effect Yes Because even when the press conferences were held by Yashwant Sinha Arun Shor, Prashant Bhushan There were notices sent to many media organizations So the whole idea was to dissuade and tell people Look, these cases can last for years The long arm of the law can be really long The wheels of justice can grind very very slowly Excruciatingly slowly Don't mess around with us Is that also the intention to have this kind of a chilling effect? Certainly and we have seen it in the most visible instance In the IIPM case IIPM as a company does not offer educational courses any longer But only a few months back Its litigations against Google and Caravan Were still proceeding Though the organization itself was virtually wound down And these cases originated in Silture, Assam They were for exaggerated amount of damages So it follows the same template You take an interim injunction You bring a person within the purview of law And you impact them severely There are other side effects And second-order negative effects as well All media organizations today Are facing challenges with respect to their funding And also generating revenue And we need to recognize that media organizations Today exist on the amount of money Reporters who work there Resources which they have Ground reports which they make require money Now a lot of this kind of funding by itself Comes through guarantees, loans And Paranjoy you have written about it How stressed this sector is by itself Now what happens when a 10,000 crore claim Is filed against any media company And these are companies It becomes difficult for them to raise funds Yes, because it shows as a pending litigation And that too by such a large amount of money By the Ambani group You are saying that this kind of threat Also to financially make Cripple So it does have a chilling effect Other media organizations then Adopt a much more cautious approach And you know this better than me How do editorial room meetings work Let us do this story is pitched by a reporter The editor says it's a good story Then there's some small investigation To get to know what's the basis of the story But then slowly on it's discovered that Oh, there are also pending litigations Relating to this story So there is a chance that it may become litigious Okay, the second thing is Even if the story goes ahead You still send it to a lawyer to review And the lawyer is conservative The lawyer is not a journalist The lawyer's interest is in preventing The very existence of the litigation It sucks out the public interest From your story itself and a lot of the details And dissuades them from doing Further investigations and reports Exactly because a reporter who Investigates one story and one company Is usually a reporter who gains Inside knowledge and access to sources And then follows it up in a series of reports So the first defamation case On the first report by itself By a lot of companies and corporates Actually squelches the actual meat Of the report which is to follow the entree So what advice would you give To NDTV, to citizen What should you do to them? What advice would you give to the lawyer? See as a lawyer I can only advise That prepare a proper chain of documentation And engage the right lawyers Okay, now all I am saying Now let's move to the big issue Key, you have worked on the constitutional challenge To criminal defamation The Supreme Court bench under the Former Chief Justice of India Mr. Deepak Mishra ruled He is sort of the way I understand That lengthy judgment is that It sort of put on more or less on a par Or almost on balance An individual's right to her or his reputation And the right to free speech What is the argument that it is about time India decriminalized defamation What is the argument? Because people can argue that Why should it not remain Why can you not have criminal defamation So what if it was a colonial era law? So I think there are several things Which are wrong with the reasoning of the court But you have gathered the gist of it correctly Deepak Mishra places I am sorry the Supreme Court places The right to reputation As well as the right to freedom of speech And expression on equal plane But they are not equal Because a constitutional right to free expression Which is under Article 191A Has a specific exemption Which is a reasonable restriction And is expressly mentioned as defamation These words are there So your primary rule is the right Which is your natural right Which is free expression And there is a restriction to it The restriction cannot be put on an equal plane By elevating it and linking it to reputation Because it is already there It is much more specific Now beyond the legality I think today the political discussion Which needs to proceed is in the manner Of criminal law reform You need to first make sure That the freedom of speech And expression is protected But at the same time make sure That people are not harmed by injurious speech And the process of defamation works It works in a manner That every citizen's right Which is the freedom of speech And this Article 192 In which you It has to be given proper right Reasonable restriction Parliament has to today Step in practically It has to legislate on legislation In a way which protects free expression But at the same time Gives an effective remedy Not a punitive remedy But an effective remedy To a person who has been defamed It should provide for various provisions For instance that I need to Mandatorily send a notice To the person who is defamed So you are saying that it is necessary to change the law Yes It is not enough to just say Move a sort of a review petition Or a curative petition Against what the Supreme Court bench ruled It is possible But I don't see much of it Because at this date Most of the people Who have power Who have status Who have been defamed Use defamation law This is true Because social media has been spread In the face of Manhani Most of the people Have started filing in cities Who have not been defamed But most of the defamation It is done And alleged by people To be done against them When they are public officials Or their public personality So I think they have immense power And they by themselves The prevailing public sentiment Will not be in favour Of a constitutional Challenge per se Given that the judgement just came in 15 What do you want to say What should the Parliament do So the first thing is Why is defamation there Defamation is to redress your injury In which your name has been solid And that can not be done By 10,000 crores That has to be done by an apology A correction which is proportionate To the actual injury cost to you And the thing is Remedy needs to be effective It has to give a fair chance To both parties to contest the truth And establish it Defamation is essentially about establishing A law and not using and Gaming the processes Which have developed due to delays In our court system to make sure That I take an interim injunction Prevent you from publication of the article Today and then sit on it For a decade and this is the problem We need to cure it by law and when We do it I think criminal defamation Will go by itself and these kind Of suits in Ahmedabad for 10,000 crores Will stop. Thank you so much Apar for giving us your time Thank you for your time and explaining Thank you for being with us You just heard Advocate Apar Gupta Explaining what needs to be done In what manner Parliament needs to amend The existing laws pertaining To manhane Yeah defamation Thank you for being with us Keep watching NewsClick