LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI vs SAKET GOKHALE & ANR.
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st July 2024
+ CS(OS) 300/2021 & I.A. 1990/2022
LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Ms. Palak Sharma, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi, Advocates.
versus
SAKET GOKHALE & ANR. ….. Defendants
Through: None for D-1.
Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advocates for D-2.
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
INTRODUCTION
Good name in man and woman dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls;
Who steals my purse, steals trash: tis something
nothing;
Twas mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.1
2. The plaintiff has been impelled to file this suit by reason of certain tweets put-out by defendant No.1 in the public domain, which the plaintiff claims have defamed her and her family. The tweets that the plaintiff finds offensive are set-out subsequently in the judgment.
3. The plaintiff contends that the tweets contain malicious falsehood, as a result of which her reputation has been tarnished. She seeks a direction to defendant No.1 to take-down and delete the offending tweets from the public domain; an order restraining him from publishing any further tweets in the same vein; an unconditional apology from defendant No.1; as well as a decree of damages in the sum of Rs. 5 crores, with a further direction that the money be deposited in the Prime Ministers Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund). The plaintiff also seeks costs of the present proceedings.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
4. The plaintiff avers that she is a person of high accomplishment and reputation. The averments in the plaint relating to the plaintiffs achievements may be summarised as follows :
4.1. The plaintiff was a career diplomat, who joined the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) in 1974 and served as an Indian diplomat for 28 years upto 2002.
4.2. During her tenure in the IFS, the plaintiff is stated to have served in various capacities in Japan, Sri Lanka and Switzerland; and later as Indias Ambassador to Hungry, being accredited to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4.3. That apart, the plaintiff is stated to have served for more than 15 years, between October 2002 and February 2018, at the United Nations (UN) in senior positions. She is stated to have served as Director of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), for which role she was selected through an internationally competitive recruitment process; and which role she served while on lien from the Government of India for that period.
4.4. The plaintiff subsequently served as the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN as well as Deputy Executive Director of UN-WOMEN, a UN entity working for gender equality and empowerment of women, which was then a newly formed organisation, which the plaintiff helmed for around 07 years.
4.5. The plaintiff is the recipient of several prestigious international awards and accolades, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award; the Novus Award for Championing Sustainable Development Goals; the Millennium Campus Award 2015; and the Global Generation Award as Inspiration for Youth among others, the details whereof have been set-out in Document No.1 filed alongwith the plaint.
4.6. The plaintiff has also narrated her multi-faceted experience in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy and the many areas of public administration that she has been involved with in the course of her career.
4.7. The plaintiff has also given a brief description of her family background, to show that her parents and her sister have also devoted their life in the service of the nation, having enjoyed a reputation of honesty, integrity and probity in their personal as well as public lives.
4.8. Most pertinently, the plaintiff has stated that her husband Mr.Hardeep Singh Puri, has also had a distinguished career as an IFS Officer of the 1974 batch; and has served at Ambassador-level posts for more than 12 years between 1999 to 2013. The plaintiffs husband is also stated to have worked for the United Nations Development Programme from 1988 to 1991; he is stated to have served as the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland from 2002 to 2005, and subsequently in New York, USA from 2009 to 2013. The plaintiff has also set-out other achievements of her husband, including the fact that since September 2017 he has been serving as a Minister in the Central Government.
5. The plaintiffs grievance, for which she seeks redressal by way of the present suit, is that through a series of tweets put-out on his Twitter-handle @SaketGokhale on the social-media platform Twitter (now known as X), defendant No.1 has tarnished her good name and reputation by making reckless and false allegations in relation to her financial affairs in the context of an apartment that she owns in Geneva, Switzerland.
6. For clarity, though the social-media platform Twitter has since been renamed as X, in this judgment the platform has been referred to as Twitter and the statements issued on it as tweets.
7. The plaintiff has prefaced her allegations against defendant No.1 by pointing-out that defendant No.1 has about 2,08,700 followers on his Twitter-handle and that he also solicits and receives funds by way of crowdfunding through the same. To this end, the plaintiff draws attention to a pinned tweet that appears on defendant No.1s Twitter-handle, which reads as follows :
(extracted from court record)
8. The series of tweets which the plaintiff claims have defamed her, and which are hereinafter, individually and collectively, referred to as the offending tweets, are tabulated below :
S. No.
Date & Time of Tweet
Tweet
1.
13.06.2021
09:26 AM
2.
13.06.2021
09:29 AM
3.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
4.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
5.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
6.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
7.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
8.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
9.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
10.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
11.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
12.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
(extracted from court record)
9. The plaintiff has also set-out in the plaint the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) of the offending tweets, through which the tweets can be accessed on the social-media platform Twitter. It may be mentioned here that vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 made in the present proceedings, defendant No.1 was directed to remove the offending tweets from his Twitter-handle, which is stated to have been done.
10. The court has heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff. As recorded in order dated 21.02.2024, since no claim was made against defendant No. 2/X. Corp., Mr. Deepak Gogia, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2 was not called-upon to address the court.
11. For completeness it may be noted that the record of the proceedings shows, that though no formal summons were issued in the present suit, defendant No.1 had entered appearance in the matter on 08.07.2021 on advance service; and subsequently, vide judgment dated 13.07.2021, this court had issued interim directions to defendant No.1 to delete the offending tweets and other connected tweets from his Twitter-handle; and had also restrained defendant No.1 from posting any defamatory, scandalous or factually incorrect tweets against the plaintiff or her husband. As recorded in order dated 24.11.2021, defendant No.1 had complied with the directions issued by this court and had filed Compliance Affidavit dated 07.09.2021 confirming so. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had also filed his written statement dated 18.09.2021 and an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 in the matter. The delay in filing the written statement was condoned by the learned Joint Registrar and the written statement was taken on record vide order dated 10.02.2022. Subsequently replication dated 03.02.2022 was also filed by the plaintiff.
12. As recorded in order dated 23.08.2023, Mr. Sarim Naved, learned counsel who was appearing for defendant No.1 had sought discharge in the matter on that date, whereupon a fresh court notice was issued to defendant No.1, which was duly served upon him. This was duly recorded by the learned Joint Registrar in order dated 25.09.2023.
13. However, since defendant No.1 chose not to be represented in the matter thereafter, he was set ex-parte vide order dated 19.12.2023.
14. Considering the manner in which the case has proceeded, issues were never formally framed in the suit. However, the issues that require consideration in the present case are as follows :
Issue No. 1 : Whether the offending tweets, or any of them, have defamed the plaintiff ? OPP.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to issue and publish an unconditional apology to the plaintiff for having put-out the offending tweets ? OPP.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction restraining defendant No.1 from publishing any further tweet in relation to the imputations made in the offending tweets ? OPP.
Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages against defendant No. 1 for defamation resulting from the offending tweets; and, if so, in what amount ? OPP.
Issue No. 5 : Relief.
PLAINTIFFS CONTENTIONS
15. The plaintiffs contentions in relation to the offending tweets are the following :
15.1. That the 02 tweets put-out by defendant No.1 on 13.06.2021 reveal that he had intended and planned to issue malicious and defamatory statements against the plaintiff subsequently. Prior to putting-out the tweets on 13.06.2021, defendant No.1 did not verify any facts from the plaintiff and then went on to put-out a series of tweets on 23.06.2021, in a manner which clearly smacks of a deliberate intention on the part of defendant No.1 to defame the plaintiff.
15.2. That the contents of the offending tweets are factually incorrect, false and per-se defamatory of the plaintiff and her family.
15.3. That defendant No.1 was under a minimum obligation to cross-check and confirm facts with the plaintiff, before putting-out false information in the public domain through his Twitter-handle; but that he deliberately chose not to do so, since the tweets were put-out with ulterior motive and were designed to achieve some collateral objective.
15.4. That, as is evident from the contents of the offending tweets, the thrust of the insinuation made by defendant No.1 is that the plaintiff, being an IFS Officer on a government salary, could not have afforded to buy a house in Geneva, Switzerland within her financial means; and that therefore, the plaintiff has indulged in financial wrongdoing.
15.5. That the offending tweets also insinuate that the property in Geneva, Switzerland could not have been purchased even with the income of the plaintiff and her husband put together. Defendant No.1 then purports to draw the attention of the Finance Minister of the Union Government to the plaintiffs financial affairs, asking that the plaintiffs financial affairs be inquired into in the context of the Prime Ministers promise to bring back unaccounted wealth stashed-away by Indians abroad. Defendant No.1 also questions whether the Finance Minister would order an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (viz. the investigating agency under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002) into how the plaintiff and her husband acquired the money to buy property abroad.
15.6. That a perusal of the offending tweets shows that the only documents to which defendant No.1 refers, are the declarations made by the plaintiffs husband as part of his nomination papers for election to the Rajya Sabha on two occasions, which require a candidate to furnish on affidavit the details of assets and liabilities of the candidate, their spouse, as well as their dependants; and that no further enquiry was done by defendant No.1 before putting-out the offending tweets.
16. To answer the allegations made against the plaintiff by way of the offending tweets, in the plaint she explains the source of funds through which she purchased the property in Geneva, Switzerland, as follows :
16.1. Firstly, the plaintiff explains that what she purchased in Geneva was an apartment and not a house as falsely asserted by defendant No.1 in the offending tweets.
16.2. The plaintiff submits that the apartment was bought on 31.03.2005; the total cost of purchase of the apartment was Swiss Francs (CHF) 1.6 million, of which CHF 1.0 million was funded by the plaintiff through a loan from UBS Bank, Geneva, Switzerland; and the balance CHF 0.6 million was funded by the plaintiffs daughter, who was then working as Senior Vice President with an international investment bank in New York, USA. To substantiate this submission, the plaintiff has filed along with the plaint Document No.7 evidencing the loan/mortgage obtained from UBS Bank, Geneva. She has also filed remittance advices from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., New York, USA as Document No. 6, to evidence the transfer of money to the plaintiff by her daughter in New York, USA at the relevant time.
16.3. The plaintiff explains that she served as Director, UNCTAD for 07 years between 2002-2009 and her total earning in the year 2005 was equivalent to USD 212,149.71. An Attestation from the United Nations Office evidencing that submission is filed alongwith the plaint as Document No. 5. The plaintiff states that thereafter she served as Assistant Secretary-General at the UN in New York from 2011 to 2018, at which time she received an annual income of about USD 250,000.00.
16.4. The plaintiff clarifies that she remained on leave from the Government of India from 2002 to 2011, after which she took voluntary retirement from the IFS in March, 2011; and during this period she did not receive any salary from the Government of India.
16.5. The plaintiff further submits that at the time she bought the apartment, her husband was posted as Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of India at Geneva since 2002, in which position, he was receiving allowances of about USD 76,000.00 per annum, in addition to his salary from the Government of India. It is accordingly stated, that during the period the plaintiff and her husband were posted in Geneva, their combined annual income was about USD 290,000.00.
16.6. Furthermore, to show the transparent and bona-fide nature of the transaction, the plaintiff also says that she duly intimated the purchase of the apartment in Geneva to her parent Ministry viz. the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 17.05.2005, as required under the service rules applicable to her.
16.7. The plaintiff also points-out, that in the affidavits declaring assets and liabilities filed by the plaintiffs husband alongwith his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha in 2018 and 2020, her husband also duly disclosed the ownership of the apartment to the concerned authorities.
17. For completeness it may be recorded that by way of application bearing I.A No. 25540/2023, the plaintiff had sought leave to file additional documents; which application was allowed vide order 19.12.2023; whereby the plaintiff was permitted to bring on record copies of certain communications exchanged between the plaintiff and UBS Bank authenticating the loan documents that have been filed by the plaintiff, as also the plaintiffs recent communications with the Ministry of External Affairs seeking documents in relation to the purchase of the apartment in Geneva, Switzerland.
18. It is also relevant to record that in response to letter dated 25.08.2023 sent by the plaintiff to the Ministry of External Affairs, requesting them to issue a certificate acknowledging receipt of the Immovable Property Acquisition pro-forma submitted vide letter dated 17.05.2005 (through which the plaintiff had informed the Ministry about the purchase of the apartment), the plaintiff has received a response dated 06.09.2023 from the Ministry, saying that they have 02 documents available with them : (i) a letter dated 26.04.2005 sent by the plaintiff intimating the Ministry about the purchase of a residential apartment by her daughter for her in the outskirts of Geneva; and (ii) a letter dated 12.05.2005 sent by the Ministry requesting the plaintiff to submit the information in the prescribed pro-forma. Furthermore, the Ministry has informed the plaintiff that letter dated 17.05.2005 (vide which the Immovable Property Acquisition pro-forma was submitted) could not be found since the Ministry does not retain records of officers beyond 05 years of their retirement, the plaintiff having retired in 2011. The foregoing documents have also been brought on record by the plaintiff by way of application bearing I.A No. 25540/2023.
19. The plaintiff states that in response to the tweets put-out by defendant No.1 on 23.06.2021, she responded by putting-out a tweet on 23.06.2021 itself, explaining as follows :
(extracted from court record)
20. The plaintiff also caused to be issued to defendant No.1, a lawyers notice dated 23.06.2021, demanding from him an immediate apology and removal of the offending tweets, alongwith an undertaking that he would not resort to such slanderous behaviour in the future. The plaintiff also put the legal notice sent by her on her Twitter-handle, with the following tweet :
(extracted from court record)
21. It is submitted however, that defendant No.1 did not comply with the requisitions made in the lawyers notice; and thereby he refused to make amends for the harm caused by him to the plaintiffs good name, which has resulted in irreversible damage to the plaintiffs reputation, since the contents of the offending tweets were subsequently also re-tweeted and commented upon.
22. The plaintiff also exchanged other tweets with defendant No.1 in relation to her financial resources and in relation to the declarations made by the plaintiffs husband, screenshots of which are also being set-out below for sake of completeness. The plaintiff asserts that this exchange of tweets shows that defendant No.1 not only made comments and allegations in relation to the plaintiff but also questioned the disclosures and declarations made by the plaintiffs husband in his disclosure affidavits filed along with his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha. The tweets exchanged are the following :
S. No.
Date & Time
Tweet
1.
23.06.2021
02:11 PM
2.
23.06.2021
02:24 PM
3.
23.06.2021
10:21 PM
4.
23.06.2021
Time not mentioned
(extracted from court record)
23. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that therefore, the target of the offending tweets was not only the plaintiff but also her husband. If anything, the plaintiff herself is only a former public servant and it was the plaintiffs husband who was currently holding public office; and therefore, it is clear that the offending tweets were motivated by political considerations.
24. The plaintiff alleges that the offending tweets are false and so to the plaintiffs knowledge; that they were put-out by defendant No.1 deliberately, with the intention of defaming the plaintiff, and through the plaintiff, also her husband. She further submits that publication of the offending tweets is malicious and has caused irreversible harm to the fair name and reputation of the plaintiff and her family.
25. The plaintiff points-out that the serious and irreversible prejudice and damage to her reputation is apparent from the responses and comments received to the offending tweets on Twitter, in which she has been ridiculed, abused and jeered. The plaintiff submits that the offending tweets have been Liked by more than 26,270 users and Re-tweeted by more than 8,208 users (as of the time of filing the plaint), which implies that thousands of users have accepted and endorsed the (false) contents of the offending tweets.
26. The plaintiff laments that 03 decades of hard-work and dedicated public service put-in by her has been tarnished by the untruthful and false statements made by defendant No.1 in the offending tweets.
27. Most importantly, the plaintiff contends, that defendant No.1 did not exercise the required due-diligence and caution before publishing the offending tweets and proceeded to put-out falsehood in the public domain by referring only to the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband before the Election Commission of India in connection with his Rajya Sabha nomination papers. The argument accordingly is, that had defendant No.1 exercised due-diligence, he could have sought clarification from the plaintiff, who would have given full answers to the doubts entertained by defendant No.1 in relation to the purchase of the apartment. Instead, it is submitted, that as recorded by this court vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 disposing-of the interim application filed in the matter, defendant No.1 has taken the stand that no law requires him to exercise due-diligence before posting any content about anyone on social-media platforms.
28. The plaintiff further asserts that defendant No.1s act of tagging the Finance Minister on his tweets, attempting to justify that he was only trying to bring to the attention of the Finance Minister a matter that requires investigation, was only an ex-post facto exercise and does not satisfy the requirement of due-diligence that should have been exercised by defendant No.1 prior to putting-out the offending tweets. It is argued that reasonable verification of facts, as well as prior consent before publication in specific cases, is imperative.
29. The plaintiff further argues that defendant No.1 is not even a journalist properly so-called, since he only puts-out his views and comments on his Twitter-handle but is not a regular contributor to any print or electronic journalistic publication. In fact, it is pointed-out that it is public knowledge that subsequent to the publication of the offending tweets, defendant No.1 has joined the Trinamool Congress Party, and is now therefore declaredly, a politician.
30. Another argument put-forth on behalf of the plaintiff is that by inducing the plaintiff to disclose the money taken by her from her daughter towards purchase of the apartment, defendant No.1 has induced the plaintiff to breach her own privacy. In this behalf learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff draws attention to section 45-S of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which provision mandates that any person who receives a money deposit from another must make a disclosure to that effect but exempts an individual accepting a deposit from his or her relative (which includes a daughter).
31. It is also argued that the misinformation that defendant No.1 has put-out by way of the offending tweets is exempt from disclosure even under section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005, if a query were to be made under that statute. It is accordingly, the contention that the plaintiff was constrained to disclose that she had received
money from her daughter to purchase the apartment only because of the falsehood spread by defendant No.1; and had that not been the case, no law could have compelled the plaintiff to make that disclosure since receipt of money by the plaintiff from her daughter was a strictly private matter between blood relatives and close family members.
32. In response to the stand taken by defendant No.1 that no law requires him to undertake any due-diligence before putting-out the offending tweets, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 20212, even a social-media intermediary such as Twitter, is required to perform due-diligence with regard to content that is carried on their platform, failing which they lose the safe harbour protection available to them under the law.3 It is accordingly submitted, that it is imperative on the part of every person who authors or puts-out content in the public domain via such intermediary, to conduct requisite due-diligence, which defendant No.1 has admittedly failed to do.
33. It is also argued on behalf of the plaintiff that having entered appearance in the present proceedings and having filed his written statement and an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, defendant No.1 has thereafter brazenly chosen not to participate in the
proceedings, which amounts to defendant No.1 having canvassed a vexatious defence, which must be visited with requisite consequences. Upon being queried, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also urged that since the contesting defendant has failed to participate in the proceedings, no purpose would be served by requiring the plaintiff to lead formal ex-parte evidence in the matter, since there is no-one to cross-examine the plaintiff or any of her witnesses. It has also been submitted that the documents and material filed by the plaintiff on record, duly supported by the affidavit filed along with the plaint, as also the affidavit filed under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, constitute sufficient material for the court to proceed to decide the suit on merits, without any further reference to defendant No.1.
34. In support of her case the plaintiff has relied upon the following judicial precedents :
34.1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors.4, to submit that professional reputation is sacrosanct; and is a matter of honour and dignity of a person.
34.2. R. Rajagopal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.5, to submit that reasonable verification of facts as well as prior consent in specific cases is imperative before publication. Furthermore, where a partys right to privacy has been breached, they are entitled to damages.
34.3. Selvi J. Jayalalithaa vs. Penguin Books India6, to submit that the requirement for reasonable verification has consistently been held to be necessary.
34.4. S.Ve. Shekher vs. Al. Gopalsamy and other connected matters7, to support the proposition that an individual with public following must exercise caution before issuing public statements on social networking sites, since such statements carry immense impact.
34.5. Arvind Kejriwal vs. State& Anr.8, to submit that a public figure must exercise due-diligence and care in disseminating information on social-media.
34.6. M/s. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Mastech Corporation& Ors.9, to submit that the law recognizes a situation where a party may be compelled by another to make a disclosure and breach their own privacy; and that inducement to breach a contract is in essence pari materia with a case where a party is compelled to breach their own privacy in order to establish their case.
34.7. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Gauhati Town Club & Anr.10, M/s.S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh & Co. KG vs. M/s. Jaikara Apparels & Anr.11 and Infiniti Retail Ltd. vs. Croma-Share & Ors.12, to argue that where a defendant is set ex-parte and the material before the court is sufficient to allow the plaintiffs claim, judicial time should not be wasted in leading ex-parte evidence.
34.8. Pramodkumar vs. O.Thomas Printer & Publisher, Deccan Chronicle & Holdings Ltd. &Ors.13, to support the proposition that if a party enters appearance in a matter but does not lead evidence, it amounts to presenting a vexatious defence and such party should be subject to exemplary costs. Furthermore, by not leading evidence, a defendant does not discharge the onus of establishing their defence.
DEFENDANTS CONTENTIONS
35. Absent any effective participation by defendant No.1 at the stage of final decision of the suit, this court has been especially careful to examine the defences raised by the said defendant in his written statement dated 18.09.2021, and in Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 filed by defendant No.1 in relation to the documents filed by the plaintiff.
36. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he has raised the following preliminary objections :
36.1. Defendant No.1 says that the subject of the suit also pertains to the plaintiffs husband, and therefore the plaintiffs husband should have been made party to the suit.14
36.2. Defendant No.1 further argues that a prayer seeking relief for the benefit of a third-party, viz. the prayer in the suit which seeks that damages be awarded to the plaintiff and be then paid to the PM Cares Fund, is an improper prayer.15
36.3. Defendant No.1 also claims that the suit is bad in law since it is against public interest and that the (p)laintiff has suppressed affidavits revealing assets filed by her husband which raise pertinent questions.16
37. In his written statement defendant No.1 has then proceeded to cite his own credentials as a financial journalist and as a person well-versed with election procedures. He claims to be an RTI activist and transparency investigator; further disclosing that as on 17.08.2021, he has become a member of the Trinamool Congress Party.
38. Defendant No.1 also says in his written statement that the source of his information, based on which he has put-out the offending tweets, were the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband as part of his nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha. Defendant No.1 submits that he studied the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband, whereupon certain points of concern became apparent to him, the details of which he has set-out in the written statement.
39. In particular, defendant No.1 claims that the plaintiffs income as disclosed in her husbands disclosure affidavits, neither includes the income she received from the United Nations nor the pension she receives from the Government of India.17Defendant No.1 then proceeds to claim that in the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband for the years 2018 and 2020, the plaintiffs income
… seems underreported
.18 Defendant No.1 also expresses doubt as to the balance payable by the plaintiff against the loan she took for purchasing the apartment, which he says raises question about the purchase of the apartment itself.
40. The thrust of defendant No.1s response in his written statement is that the stated sources of the plaintiffs income do not match her declared income or her assets as declared in her husbands disclosure affidavits.
41. It is noticed that apart from mere bald denials in his written statement19, defendant No.1 does not dispute or deny that the plaintiff had served in the IFS from 1974 to 2002 and that she took voluntary retirement in 2011. Defendant No.1 says that the plaintiffs family background and their claimed service to the nation have no connection, whether direct or indirect, with the suit. He also says that being a legislators wife, the plaintiffs assets are to
be declared publicly and can be commented on publicly.20
42. On point of fact, defendant No.1 admits that he holds the Twitter-handle on which the offending tweets were put-out. In fact he submits that the number of his followers on Twitter are
now slightly higher than reported in the Plaint.21
43. Defendant No.1 specifically admits that the offending tweets were published by him on his Twitter-handle.22 But he denies that he had any ulterior motive in putting-out the offending tweets; or that he adopts any devious methods or modus-operandi to tarnish the image of his targets.
44. Notably, defendant No.1 asserts that he
crowd funds his public interest work and has a reputation as an RTI activist with integrity23. He denies that he is trying to increase his followers on his Twitter-handle for receiving funds from donations and through crowd-funding. He claims that such allegation is wrong and defamatory.
45. Defendant No.1 denies that he did not try to verify facts from the plaintiff prior to publishing the tweets on 26.03.2021.24 He submits that the offending tweets relied-upon information contained in the election affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband, which are available in the public domain; and that therefore, there was no need for defendant No.1 to have verified the facts
from the Plaintiff separately before publishing his tweets as they were based entirely upon the information provided by the plaintiffs husband under oath25.
46. In his written statement defendant No.1 then proceeds to assert as follows :
26. That the contents of Para 14 are denied, except insofar as they are admitted hereunder. It is true that the Defendant had not contacted the Plaintiff, but Defendant had done his due-diligence by perusing public record and obtaining information. It is wrong and denied that the tweet is for some ulterior motives and designed to achieve some other objective and that therefore such a minimum obligation was deliberately avoided and omitted by the Defendant as he would have come to know of the true facts and could not have proceeded further with putting any allegedly false tweets in the public domain. It is reiterated that Defendant had relied upon the election affidavit of the husband of the Plaintiff and other information which is part of public record and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to contact the Plaintiff for confirming any facts from her before publishing the said tweets.
(emphasis supplied)
47. Pertinently, defendant No.1 denies that through the offending tweets he has made any false, scurrilous, malicious or libelous allegations or insinuation that the plaintiff alongwith her husband had purchased the apartment in 2006 with black money. This portion of the written statement requires specific reference and reads as follows :
33. That the contents of Para 21 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the Defendant has in his series of tweets dated 23.06.2021 made a false and scurrilous/malicious/libellous allegation/insinuation that the Plaintiff along with her husband have purchased a house in Geneva, Switzerland in the year 2006 with black money. It is denied that the Defendant has in one of his tweets referred to swiss bank accounts and foreign black money and tagged the Union Finance Minister to order a money laundering enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate on the Plaintiff and her husband. It is wrong and denied that the Defendant has created an architecture of falsehood through distortion of facts, baseless assumptions and fabricated information to impute that how could the Plaintiff and her husband buy a house in Switzerland within their given income or that he has insinuated a mystery about it or implied that it may have been acquired from ill-gotten wealth. Defendant had only raised questions on the basis of publicly available information. The context of the tweets has deliberately been suppressed by the Plaintiff.
(emphasis supplied)
48. Defendant No.1 also denies that the offending tweets led to a flurry of vicious and derogatory responses and tweets from other persons. The relevant portion of the written statement reads as follows :
35. That the contents of Para 23 are wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that the abovementioned and other statements made by the Defendant in his tweets dated 23.06.2021 are false and factually incorrect, perse defamatory and libellous. It is wrong and denied that the Defendants tweets led to a flurry of vicious tweets from other persons using words such as big chors crook, besharm, corrupt, kaaladhan, thieves or any other demeaning expletives, casting aspersions of illegality, impropriety on the Plaintiff and her family or the organisations they served, be it the Government of India, the UN or any other organisation. It is wrong and denied that this has hugely impacted public perception nor can it be confirmed from any tweets mentioned/filed by the Plaintiff. It is wrong and denied that these tweets that have been filed by the Plaintiff establish that the present is a clear case of perse defamation resulting from the false tweets of the Defendant.
(emphasis supplied)
49. In fact, the essence of the defence put-up by defendant No.1 is contained in the following portion of his written statement, the relevant extract whereof says :
36.
It is wrong and denied that the defendants tweets are perse defamatory or that he has made any false allegations or made them without seeking comment from the plaintiff.
a) The Plaintiffs income, in light of the expenses at Geneva, and her duration of income, does not suffice by itself to afford the apartment at Geneva. In any case, that was not the basis on which the Defendant asked his questions regarding the Plaintiff.
b) Plaintiffs husband has suppressed her income in the election affidavit. Her income as per husbands election affidavit does not reveal the claimed income at all. Plaintiffs husband has suppressed her income in his affidavit and is manifold less than her admitted income mentioned hereunder.
c) * * * * *
d-f) It is denied for want of knowledge that the elder daughter of the Plaintiff at that time had been working as a Senior Vice President with an international investment bank at New York, USA or that out of the amount of CHF 1.6 million, a sum of CHF 6,00,000 had become available in two tranches to the Plaintiff from her daughter. The said loan amount has not been shown as repaid in her plaint or in her election affidavit.
g) It is denied for want of knowledge that the purchase of the Apartment was duly intimated by the Plaintiff to the Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 17th May 2005.
h) * * * * *
(emphasis supplied)
50. In his Affidavit of Admission/Denial of Documents dated 18.10.2021 filed by defendant No.1, he again admits to the correctness and existence of the screenshots of tweets dated 13.06.2021 and 23.06.2021 that are subject matter of the present suit; however, he denies the interpretation thereof. Defendant No.1 however denies the correctness or existence of the screenshots of the tweets made in comment or response to the offending tweets, for lack of personal knowledge.
51. Defendant No.1 also denies the documents filed by the plaintiff in support of the loan/mortgage taken by her from UBS Bank and the money taken from her elder daughter towards purchase of the apartment, again for lack of personal knowledge. Defendant No.1 also denies letter dated 17.05.2005, whereby the plaintiff claims that she had intimated the purchase of the apartment to the Ministry of External Affairs, for lack of personal knowledge.
52. Obviously, defendant No.1 admits the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband in 2018 and 2020 along with his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha.
53. However, as noted above, after filing his written statement and his affidavit of admission/denial of documents, defendant No.1 thereafter stopped appearing or being represented in the present suit. As recorded in order dated 23.08.2023, learned counsel for defendant No.1 subsequently sought discharge from the matter on the ground that he was not receiving any instructions from defendant No.1; and counsel was accordingly discharged. Thereupon court notice was issued to defendant No.1; which was duly served upon him, which fact has been recorded by the learned Joint Registrar vide order dated 25.09.2023.
54. Upon his failure to be represented in the matter despite service of court notice, vide order dated 19.12.2023 defendant No.1 was set ex-parte.
55. Thereafter there have been about 09 hearings in the case, including several final hearings, when extensive submissions were heard by this court on behalf of the plaintiff; but defendant No.1 has failed to appear or to be represented in the matter.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
56. At the outset it must be observed, that this matter has proceeded in a somewhat unusual manner. Defendant No.1 was duly served in the matter. He entered appearance through counsel. He filed his written statement and affidavit of admission/denial of documents. Thereafter however, it would appear, he stopped giving instructions to his counsel; and counsel therefore sought discharge from the matter. Subsequently defendant No.1 chose simply not to appear or be represented in the matter, as if he did not care about the outcome of the proceedings at all.
57. On the other hand, the plaintiff has assiduously pursued the matter, displaying seriousness of purpose in relation to the claim that she has made.
58. In support of the averments contained in the plaint and the documents filed therewith, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit accompanying the plaint. She has also duly filed an affidavit as required under section 65B of the Evidence Act in support of the electronic evidence tendered in the matter. The case in fact turns almost entirely upon electronic evidence, that is to say the tweets put-out by defendant No.1, which the plaintiff finds offensive; and the tweets/re-tweets made by third-parties as comments in response to the offending tweets put-out by defendant No.1. In the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the electronic record tendered by her in evidence, she deposes to the veracity of the offending tweets as well as the adverse tweets received in response.
59. On the other hand however, having filed certain documents in support of his written statement, defendant No.1 has omitted to participate in the proceedings and has not cross-examined the plaintiff in relation to her averments, allegations and documents.
60. In the affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by defendant No.1, he denies any personal knowledge of the academic and professional achievements of the plaintiff; he denies any personal knowledge of the plaintiffs family background; he denies any personal knowledge of the comments and responses received from a large number of Twitter users to the offending tweets, saying that he is not party to such comments; he denies the documents relating to the loan/mortgage from UBS Bank and the money received by the plaintiff from her daughter for purchase of the apartment, as also the intimation letter addressed by the plaintiff informing the Ministry about the purchase of the apartment, again for lack of personal knowledge.
61. Defendant No.1 however admits the existence of the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband as part of his Rajya Sabha nomination papers but disputes the interpretation of what is stated in such affidavits; he admits the existence of the offending tweets but disputes the interpretation of the contents thereof, saying that they are not per-se defamatory. Defendant No.1 also admits receipt of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to him, calling upon him to make amends for putting-out false and defamatory tweets against the plaintiff but denies its interpretation.
62. That being so, and considering that the main contesting defendant viz. defendant No.1 has been set ex-parte, this court sees no reason to call upon the plaintiff to file any further affidavit in support of the plaint or of the documents filed therewith; or to insist that she lead ex-parte evidence in the matter.
63. In the opinion of this court, calling for yet another affidavit from the plaintiff in support of her case and of the documents filed by her, would only amount to needless repetition of paperwork, which is wholly uncalled for in a case where the contesting defendant has let the matter proceed in default, deliberately as it were. If the plaintiff were called upon to file a formal affidavit-in-evidence, she would substantially only repeat what she has already stated in her plaint and in the affidavit filed in support thereof; and, moreover, there would be no one to cross-examine the plaintiff on such affidavit-in-evidence.
64. To be sure, defendant No.1 has asserted and placed on record his defence in writing by way of his written statement, which is duly supported by his affidavit. Defendant No.1 has also filed an affidavit towards admission/denial of the plaintiffs documents. Insofar as the documents filed by defendant No.1 are concerned, all those documents (except the disclosure affidavits of the plaintiffs husband) are denied by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has not participated in the proceedings to prove such documents. In any event, in the opinion of this court, the documents filed or relied upon by defendant No. 1 do not persuade the court to change its decision in the present case.
65. In the circumstances, this court records that there is sufficient material before the court to proceed to decide the case on merits, without calling upon the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence, since that would be a mere superfluity. In doing so this court also derives support from the view taken by our Co-ordinate Benches in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd (supra), M/s. S. Oliver Bernd Freier Gmbh (supra) and Infiniti Retail Ltd. (supra) cited by the plaintiff.
66. Upon a conspectus of the above, this court is persuaded to hold that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden upon her for proving the documents that she has filed and relied-upon; and accepts the veracity of such documents. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has failed to discharge the subsequent onus upon him to disprove or belie the same.
67. A brief dissection of the offending tweets is required at this point :
67.1. The first two tweets put-out by defendant No.1 on 13.06.2021 referred to an ex-Indian civil servant who was with the Bhartiya Janata Party, which was a clear reference to the plaintiffs husband.
67.2. The tweets dated 13.06.2021 said that the plaintiffs husband had bought an house overseas worth $2 million, which would be equivalent to over Rs. 10 crores (at the relevant time), with a value of about Rs. 25 crores today. The 02 tweets further went on to say that (at the relevant time) the plaintiffs husband had no income other than a government salary (to be able to purchase the property). The tweets also called upon the Finance Minister to promise an unbiased probe and that if such probe was assured … … all papers/documents will be furnished.
67.3. While putting-out the 02 tweets on 13.06.2021, defendant No.1 made no reference to the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband; nor did defendant No.1 give any details of the exact cost of the apartment or the manner in which it was funded. However, he did pose a question as to whether the Enforcement Directorate would investigate the matter.
67.4. Thereafter defendant No.1 did not put out any tweets for the next 10 days.
67.5. The clear insinuation in the first 02 tweets dated 13.06.2021 was that the plaintiffs husband had come to own property abroad without having salary or income enough to do so, suggesting that this requires a probe by the Enforcement Directorate.
67.6. Defendant No.1 maintained studied silence as to the source of his information, making no reference to the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband or to the disclosures made by the plaintiff herself to her Ministry. But he clearly alleged wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiffs husband.
68. The second set of 10 tweets were put-out by defendant No.1 on 23.06.2021, the contents of which may be summarised as follows :
68.1. Defendant No.1 now brought the plaintiff into the picture by naming her. He also named the plaintiffs husband. He said that there was … … a great mystery about them which revolves around $2.5 million house in Switzerland.
68.2. Defendant No.1 then gave some details about the plaintiffs job at the UNCTAD in Geneva. He now clarified that the house in Switzerland was purchased by the plaintiff (not by her husband). He indicated the price of purchase as CHF 1.6 million. He referenced the pay-band/pay-scale that the plaintiff and her husband were drawing in 2006; and expressed that the purchase of the house was something of interest.
68.3. Defendant No.1 then proceeded to refer to the disclosure affidavit filed by the plaintiffs husband in 2017 (reference perhaps being to the affidavit filed in 2018 or 2020); and posted a screenshot of the affidavit, showing disclosure made by the plaintiffs husband about ownership of the apartment (and not a house as incorrectly claimed by defendant No.1) alongwith the date and cost of purchase and the mortgage from UBS Bank.
68.4. Defendant No.1 thereafter presented his own inferences as to the down-payment required against the loan taken for purchase of the property. He cast a doubt as to why the plaintiffs husband had not disclosed the current value of the apartment, which, defendant No.1 said he found strange. He attempted to explain that a mortgage is never given for the entire cost of purchase and that the plaintiff and her husband did not have sufficient annual household income to afford the apartment.
68.5. Defendant No.1 followed this with a series of questions in his tweets, including as to how the plaintiff and her husband had enough savings to buy the apartment and to make the down-payment.
68.6. Defendant No.1 then closed his tweets by drawing attention to the fact that the Prime Minister had promised to … … bring back foreign black money… …; and again questioned whether the Finance Minister would order an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate into how the plaintiff and her husband had enough money to buy the apartment abroad.
69. Based on the above-referred documents, the plaintiffs case against the offending tweets is really quite simple.
70. The plaintiff alleges that the contents of the offending tweets put-out by defendant No.1 are false. She says that defendant No.1 did not make any effort to verify the factual position in relation to the contents of the offending tweets before publishing them. The plaintiff further asserts that through the contents and the tone and tenor of the offending tweets, defendant No.1 has clearly insinuated that the plaintiff bought an apartment in Geneva, Switzerland through funds, the provenance of which is questionable. Defendant No.1 has also said that at the relevant time the plaintiff and her husband did not have the financial means to have purchased the apartment. The plaintiff alleges that the aim of defendant No.1 was to spread malicious falsehood, not only against the plaintiff, but perhaps more importantly, against the plaintiffs husband who currently holds a ministerial post in the Central Government. The plaintiff asserts that the source of the funds used by her to buy the apartment are legitimate and accounted-for; and more specifically, that she had fully disclosed the acquisition of the apartment, including the source of funds, to her parent Ministry viz. the Ministry of External Affairs at the relevant time. She also contends that the plaintiffs husband has also duly disclosed the purchase of the apartment, including the mortgage existing thereon, in the two disclosure affidavits filed by him as part of his nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha.
71. Most importantly, the plaintiff explains that the financing of the apartment was quite straightforward. The total cost of purchase of the apartment was Swiss Francs i.e. CHF 1.6 million; of which, the plaintiff obtained CHF 1.0 million as loan from UBS Bank, Geneva, Switzerland against mortgage of the apartment; and the remaining CHF 0.6 million was contributed by her elder daughter in 02 tranches on 09.12.2004 and 11.03.2005. The plaintiff has filed as Document No. 7 alongwith the plaint, a copy of the UBS Fixed-Rate Mortgage dated 30.03.2005 for CHF 500,000/- and another contract for the UBS Libor Mortgage dated 30.03.2005 for another sum of CHF 500,000/- in her favour, to evidence that the sum of CHF 1.0 million was borrowed from UBS for purchase of the apartment. The plaintiff has also relied upon Document No. 6 filed by her, which are copies of Credit Advice dated 09.12.2004 for CHF 199,344/- and Credit Advice dated 11.03.2005 for CHF 506,000/- whereby the plaintiff received remittances from her daughter of certain sums of money through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., New York, USA. It is pointed-out that the daughters name has been redacted from the documents for protecting the latters privacy. The plaintiff has also clarified that the monies received from the daughter were somewhat in excess of the CHF 0.6 million required towards the balance price of the apartment, since other processing charges and closing costs also had to be paid for completing the purchase.
72. Furthermore, the plaintiff has placed on record as Document No. 8, a copy of communication dated 17.05.2005, by which the plaintiff had informed the Ministry of External Affairs that she had purchased the apartment, enclosing therewith the requisite form as prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Notably the intimation sent by the plaintiff to her Ministry regarding acquisition of immovable property also sets-out the sources from which the purchase was financed, namely through a mortgage and through equity provided by her elder daughter.
73. The plaintiff has also placed on record as Document No. 9 and Document No. 10, the disclosure affidavits filed by her husband disclosing the assets held by him and by his spouse as part of his nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha in 2018 and 2020, which also disclose both the ownership of the apartment and the existence of a mortgage with UBS.
74. Pertinently, the purported discrepancies cited by defendant No.1 in his written statement relate to the income disclosed by the plaintiffs husband for the years 2016-2017 and 2019-2020 in the disclosure affidavits filed by him in 2018 and 2020. However, once the source of funds applied for buying the apartment in 2005 stands duly disclosed by the plaintiff as well as her husband, their income for any given year, is of no relevance.
75. The legal landscape relevant for purposes of the present matter, is succinctly captured in the following judicial precedents :
75.1. In its celebrated decision in R. Rajagopal (supra) the Supreme Court has laid-down the contours and conditions of the permissible challenge that may be brought by a public official for publication of defamatory content, arising from breach of privacy relating to the discharge of their public duties. Though the plaintiff in the present case is no longer a public official, as observed above, defendant No.1 has cleverly made insinuations in the offending tweets not only to the plaintiff but also to her husband who is a public official. For this reason, the decision in R. Rajagopal is relevant. Furthermore, in R. Rajagopal the Supreme Court has also enunciated the aspect of a publication being made in reckless disregard of truth, which is a ground for action even by a public official, and therefore much more so by a person who has ceased to be a public official. The following portions of R. Rajagopal may be noticed:
8. On the pleadings in this petition, following questions arise:
(1) Whether a citizen of this country can prevent another person from writing his life story or biography? Does such unauthorised writing infringe the citizens right to privacy? Whether the freedom of press guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) entitles the press to publish such unauthorised account of a citizens life and activities and if so to what extent and in what circumstances? What are the remedies open to a citizen of this country in case of infringement of his right to privacy and further in case such writing amounts to defamation?
* * * * *
26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a right to be let alone. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule.
(emphasis supplied)
75.2. Then again, in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa (supra), the Madras High Court has stressed the need for reasonable verification before publication of matter concerning the privacy of public personalities, explaining that :
55. The aforesaid dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court would be that a reasonable verification of the contents would be sufficient in respect of public personalities are concerned. The said dictum has been laid down in respect of an article written in a magazine about a public personality. Now, we have to see whether such reasonable verification has been done by the Third Defendant is the crucial point.
* * * * *
63. On a careful understanding of the aforesaid dictum, I could see that the right of privacy of an individual is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is a right to be let alone. As regards the particulars of marriage, family, procreation, motherhood, child bearing, education and other matters, anything published concerning the above matters without his or her consent whether truthful or otherwise whether laudatory or critical, it would be violating the right of privacy of a person concerned. As far as a public personality is concerned, the right of privacy is equivalent to that of an individual when it is not associated with the public life. Therefore, a thin difference has been put forth regarding the private life of a public official and the public duties of the public official. Even a public official’s private life is touched by publishing the information regarding those private matters without consent and verification, it would be an invasion of private life or privacy. Once it has been published without such consent or verification, the remedy would be the damages.
(emphasis supplied)
75.3. On whether a distinction needs to be drawn when a message is put-out by a person who has followers as compared to an ordinary person, the following observations of the Madras High Court in S.Ve. Shekher (supra) are relevant :
12. The stature of a person is directly proportional to what he communicates to the society and its consequences. Therefore, an information or a message sent by a normal citizen and the same information/message sent by a person with a stature having followers has a lot of difference. In the former, such message or information may not have an impact on the society. However, when it comes from a person with stature, its repercussions will be higher. In view of the same, such a person carries a lot of responsibility in what he says and does considering the impact it will have on the society or a particular group of persons, as the case may be.
13. Hence, a case of this nature cannot be decided by applying the same yardstick to everyone. The more a person is popular in the society, he also carries more responsibility in what he conveys to the society. The petitioner, in the instant case, falls under the category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution before forwarding the message from his facebook account. If such a caution has been thrown to the winds and as a result, it has had a very serious impact, the petitioner has to necessarily face it and cannot try to run away from the consequences by merely tendering an unconditional apology.
14. A message that is sent or forwarded in the social-media is like an arrow, which has already been shot from the bow. Till that message remains with the sender, it is within his control. Once it is sent, it is like the arrow, which has already been shot and the sender of the message must take the ownership for the consequences of the damage done by that arrow (message). Once the damage is done, it will become very difficult to wriggle out of the same by issuing an apology statement.
(emphasis supplied)
76. Now, on a plain and objective reading of the offending tweets, what defendant No.1 has stated and/or insinuated thereby is this :
76.1. That the plaintiff had purchased the apartment through ill-begotten money, since the plaintiff and her husband did not have sufficient income at the relevant time to buy the apartment.
76.2. That the financial inability of the plaintiff to purchase the apartment is evident from the disclosures contained in the disclosure affidavits filed by the plaintiffs husband in 2018 and 2020 as part of the latters nomination papers to the Rajya Sabha.
76.3. That action ought to be initiated by the concerned investigating agency against the plaintiff and her husband in-line with governmental policy to bring back ill-begotten wealth stashed abroad, as per the policy announced by the Prime Minister; which however defendant No.1 says will not happen, since the plaintiffs husband holds a ministerial post in the Central Government.
77. Now, by way of the documents filed in support of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly and cogently explained the source of funds that she had used to purchase the apartment. The cost of purchase of the apartment and the quantum of funds available to the plaintiff from the sources explained by her, add-up neatly. There remains no doubt as to how the plaintiff funded the purchase of the apartment. What adds further credibility to the plaintiffs explanation is the fact that, at the relevant time, that is in 2005 itself, the plaintiff had also intimated to her parent Ministry that she had purchased the apartment, also disclosing the source of the funds used for the purpose. It adds further credence to the plaintiffs version when it is noticed that part of the funds for purchase of the apartment came by way of a loan from a well-known, well-established and old banking institution, namely UBS; and the remaining funds came through regular banking channels from the plaintiffs own daughter.
78. The fact that UBS loaned money to the plaintiff to purchase the apartment