STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The present case revolves around the life of Mrs. Tiktiki and how several of her rights got
infringed.
2. Mrs Tiktiki happened to be a senior advocate in the supreme court of Purvanchal before
being appointed as the additional solicitor general of supreme court. Four years later, she
became the solicitor general of Purvanchal.
But not everyone was pleased after the success of Mrs Tiktiki in her field. Mr Totapuri was
one such man who made his life’s mission to malign mrs tiktiki’s reputation and spread
rumours about her affair with an irish physiotherapist.Mr Totapuri was an advocate for the
left wing party Purvanchal lok Party(PLP). The reasons for their arch-rivalry, as well-known
amongst the legal fraternity, was a romantic relationship which had gone sour during their
youth. Mr. Totapuri was unable to forgive Ms. Tiktiki for turning him down as a suitable
candidate and had made it his life’s mission to jeopardize Ms. Tiktiki’s professional
aspirations.
3. Mr Totapuri and mrs Tiktiki were even caught having arguments in supreme court chambers.
Mr Totapuri started the verbal fight by saying her that she is a “loose woman with no iota of
self-respect”. Mrs Tiktiki rightfuly replied back as any person would do.
4. The Supreme Court Bar Association (“SCBA”) President, Mr. Gulmukh Gulati, took upon
himself to resolve the issue by acting as a mediator and arranged for a meeting between the
two that evening. The meeting went very well.Both of them found closure and set aside the
bitterness that they had accumulated over the years for each other. Mr. Totapuri and
Ms. Tiktiki promised each other that they would not hold any grudges, and would be
friendly and respectful towards each other. While Ms. Tiktiki went to her private suite in
Hotel Mario, Mr. Totapuri went ahead to attend another lawyers’ party at the Gymkhana
Club. The next morning, Mr. Totapuri’s dead body was found next to the swimming pool of
Hotel Mario.
5. According to the police and the eyewitnesses, Ms. Tiktiki was the last person to have
seen Mr. Totapuri alive when they had parted ways in the hotel lobby. Given their
rivalry and the fact that both of them had met each other the previous night, Ms. Tiktiki
was also one of the prime-accused in the murder of Mr. Totapuri. While no arrests
were made and no charges were pressed against Ms. Tiktiki, the incident had caused
a nation-wide debate on Ms. Tiktiki’s position as the Solicitor General. News channels
across the country were running repeats of “breaking news” stories about Ms. Tiktiki’s
bona fides and propriety to hold the coveted post of the Solicitor General.
One , Mr XYZ went on to say that Mrs Tiktiki is an adulterous woman severely harming her
reputation. He also claimed that she hired the Irish physiotherapist to kill Mr. Totapuri.
6. In an interview with EFG TV, Mr. ABC commented in a manner of his own:
“I am not aware about the reason of the divorce of Mr. Totapuri
but I must say that the woman has her way with men. She has the men
wrapped all around her finger, which is how she became the Solicitor
General of India, then we get to hear about her history with Totapuri, and
now this Irish physiotherapist. Who knows maybe Totapuri would have come across
something that would put her position in danger,and after getting to know about that, she
actually killed him.”
7. The same night, during the primetime hours of news channel TRP particularly
known for endorsing the views of the left-wing, an interview was conducted
with another senior advocate Ms. JCB
 For the entire duration of this interview, the words "Tweet live with
#AboveTheLaw" were being displayed on the bottom panel of the screen.

8. Ms. Tiktiki, though upset but not distraught at the comments passed against her,
decided to resign from the post of the Solicitor General for a fair and impartial probe in
the murder of Mr. Totapuri. However, ever since the murder, there had been a
reduction in the number of briefs that she was getting to argue on behalf of briefing
counsels. There was also a sense of hostility and disrespect prevailing against her in
the court corridors.
9. Considering such news shows to be prima-facie defamatory, Ms. Tiktiki decided to file a civil
suit before the High Court of Purva Pradesh in its original ordinary jurisdiction seeking the
following reliefs:
10. (a) Direct the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of INR 2,00,00,000/- as
damages to the plaintiff for defaming her and causing loss of reputation; and
11. (b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant news channels from
broadcasting/ telecasting news or any shows that is or may be seen as derogatory,
and defamatory, or that is likely to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff or portray the
plaintiff, directly or indirectly, in a bad light and cause prejudice to the pending police
investigations.
12. The suit was registered as CS(OS) No. 245 of 2019, titled as “Ms. Titli Tiktiki v. ABC
News and Ors.”(“Suit”), with all major news channels being made a party to the suit.
The matter was to be listed for admission before a vacation bench of the High Court on
19 June 2019.
13. The next day, Mrs Tiktiki, to her shock found that out that most news channels at the 7 a.m.
prime-time show were broadcasting a series of camera recordings that contained private
footage of Ms. Tiktiki in her office and her home. The ticker notifications for the news
broadcasts read“unseen footage of Ms. Tiktiki’s extravagant lifestyle” and “do we deserve
such questionable professionals to occupy important offices”.
14. The broadcasts were aimed at showing Ms. Tiktiki as a rich and powerful lawyer who was
used to getting whatever she desired by adopting whatever means necessary.
Repeated references were made to Ms. Tiktiki’s alleged affair with her Irish
physiotherapist in order to create misplaced and misconceived notions about her,
which would also affect the officers who were investigating the murder of Mr. Totapuri.
The news channels also broadcasted the CCTV footage of Hotel Mario from the evening
when Ms. Tiktiki and Mr. Totapuri had met for dinner.
15. Enraged by this, Mrs Tiktiki filed an application for amendment to CS(OS) No. 245 of 2019.
On the next date of hearing, i.e. 01 July 2019, the following issues were framed in the
presence of the plaintiff and the defendants:
(a) Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.
(b) Whether the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
16. (c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly
17. or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what extent.
18. (d) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants
19. from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
20. otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
21. prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.
 ISSUES RAISED
I. Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.

II. Whether the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff, and if so to what extent.

IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants

from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.
The petitioner submits that the defendants are liable for libel against the plaintiff.
The acts of the defendants pass through every test to pass as defamation.
The defendants published news reports against the plaintiff in the permanent form.
The publication exposed the plaintiff to loss of reputation,hatred and ridicule as mentioned in
the facts that she faced disrespect.
The acts clearly caused the plaintiff to be avoided by her neighbours. The fact that the cases
being given to plaintiff were getting reduced proves that she faced injury in her profession.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. That the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff.
A. The defendants published the statements in permanent form to constitute libel

Under the defamation act,1952,1 the broadcasting of words by means of wireless

telegraphy ie television is treated as publication in permanent form.
It can be verified from the facts of the present case that the news channel’s broadcast
of news about Mrs Tiktiki will be termed as libel as although Mr XYZ and Mr ABC
used spoken words, the publication was in permanent form as the show could be
viewed again and again.

B. That the statement was defamatory.

Any words will be deemed defamatory which-

1. Expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or obloquy, or
2. Tend to injure him in his profession or trade; or
3. Cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours2

From the facts of the case, we can see that there was a reduction in the
number of briefs that she was getting to argue on behalf of briefing
counsels which proves that she faced injury in her profession. The acts of
the defendants also made Mrs Tiktiki to be avoided by her neighbours as
we can see from the facts that there was a sense of hostility and disrespect
prevailing against her in the court corridors. There were several remarks to
the plaintiff being an unchaste woman regaring her relationship with an
Irish physiotherapist.
However if we look at the judgements given in Hirabai Jehangir v.
Dineshaw Edulji and A.C Narayana Sah v. Kannama Bai, the Bombay and
Madras High Courts respectively held that when there was imputation of
unchastity to a woman by spoken words, the wrong was actionable without
proof of special damage. can conlude that there was substantial injury to
the plaintiff. If the statement causes ridicule and humiliation, it will be
actionable.3

The test is whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of
right thinking members of society.4 So the words are ascribed the ordinary meaning as

1
15&16 Geo. 6&1 Eliz 2, c. 66, sections 1,16
2
28 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Torts pg 297, (Akshay Sapre 2019)
3
Suraj narain v. Sita ram, (1939) A.L.J.R. 394
4
Sim v Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237, (1240)
 laymen would do. Now it is without doubt that the statements made on the news
channel were defamatory. For eg. Mr XYZ went on to say- “She has the men
wrapped all around her finger, which is how she became the Solicitor
General of India, then we get to hear about her history with Totapuri, and
now this Irish physiotherapist.” The act of the defendant amounts to defamation if the
conduct imputed is disgraceful; for example a statement alleging that the plaintiff got
elected as president of the district congress committee by paying money to the voters was
held to be defamatory.5
If we apply this rule in the present case, we can say that Mr XYZ should be liable when he
alleged that Mrs Tiktiki was appointed to the post of solicitor general through corruption.
On the other hand Mr ABC said that Mrs Tiktiki has “men wrapped all around her finger”.
However

C. The statement was published

To constitute defamation, the statements of defendant should be published and read

by somebody else.6 Communicating defamatory matter to some person other than the
person of whom it is written is publication. The words complained of should be
communicated to some person other than the plaintiff.7 A person cant excuse himself
on the ground that he published the libel by accident or mistake,8 or in jest.9

In this case we can see that the publication on news must have been viewed by a lot of
people.

D. Defamatory statement was referred to the plaintiff

In an action for defamation the plaintiff must show that the defamatory statement
refers to him. It is sufficient if he is described by the initial letters of his name, or even
by a fictitious name, provided he can satisfy the court that he was the person referred
to.10 It is immaterial whether the defendant intended the defamatory statement to
apply to the plaintiff, or knew of the plaintiff”s existence, if the statement might
reasonably understood by those who knew the plaintiff to refer to him. The reason is
that a person publishing a libel does so at his own risk.

Quoting a line by Mr XYZ -. “These are all rumors; the truth is that Ms. Tiktiki has
always been a woman of questionable character. In the case, clearly the the plaintiff
has been referred by her name.

5
Ramakant v Devilal, 1969 MPLJ 805 : 70 LT 355
6
Theaker v. Richardson, (1962) 1 All E.R. 299.
7
Barrow v Lewellin, (1615) Hob.62
8
Blake v Stevens, (1864) 4 F&F 232
9
Donoghue v. Hayes, (1831) Haye’s Ir. Ex Rep 265
10
Le Fanu v Bansidhar, AIR 1962 Ori 115
 E. The statements were false

The falsity of charge is presumed in the plaintiff’s favour.11 The burden of proof does
not lie upon the plaintiff. Defamation of a person is taken to be false until it is proved
to be true.
The council pleads in the present case that the statements were false and substantially
malicious. The news company published the statements with utter irresponsibility and
without any justification that Mrs Tiktiki had actually murdered Mr Totapuri by
employing the Irishman as a hitman.

IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants

from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice the ongoing investigations against her.

While considering an application for injunction, the Court would pass an order thereupon
having regard to prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.12

The Hon’ble Apex Court through catena of judgments like landmark judgment in Gujarat
Bottling Co. Ltd. Case , held that the Court needs to follow certain guidelines while
2

considering an application for grant of temporary injunction, some of which are

The applicant seeking relief of temporary injunction shall have to establish a prima
facie case in his favour. Thereafter the applicant also has to est13ablish that the
allegations / averments made in the application on which the temporary injunction
is sought are plausible.

While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or

the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case,
would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the
parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if
the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must

11
Belt v Lawes, (1882) 51 LJ QB 359
12
M. Gurudas & Ors. v. Rasaranjan & Ors
 be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and
not only on a mere triable issue.

A. There was a prima facie case

The "strong prima facie case" requirement has been interpreted to mean that
the plaintiff must not only satisfy the court that there is a serious issue to be
tried, but also that it is clearly right and almost certain to be successful at trial.

We can clearly see in the present case that there are several statements and
broadcasts made by the defendants that
1. Alleged plaint. had Murdered Mr. Totapuri
2. Alleged plaint. got appointed as Solicitor general through corruption
3. Referred to plaint.’s alleged affair with her Irish physiotherapist in order
to create misplaced and misconceived notions about her , which would
also affect the officers who were investigating the murder of Mr. Totapuri.

The council pleads that the statements are substantially libellous and so it
should be treated as a prima facie case.

B. The balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff

The balance of convenience applies when the scales are evenly balanced which is
so in the present case.14 The thing to note will be that what will be the extent of
loss that would be caused to the applicant if the order is not passed and also
whether it is reparable by monetary compensation i.e. by payment of cost.
Then it will examine the loss suffered by respondent if the order is passed and
thereupon it has to see which loss will be greater and irreparable. The party
who would suffer greater loss would be said to be having balance of
convenience in his favour and accordingly, the court will pass or refuse to
pass the order.15

The defendants will not suffer harm or inconvenience if they are restrained from
doing their acts. Allowing the defendants to continue publishing their works will
cause great inconvenience to the plaintiff as mentioned in the facts that it can
create misconceived notions about her which can affect the investigation of Mr
Totapuri. There can be no way in which just by giving monetary support, the
damage will get omitted. This shows clear necessity for affording protection to
plaint.’s alleged right which would otherwise be seriously injured.

C. The plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary
injunction is disallowed

14
Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt Ltd v Kirloskar Proprietory Ltd AIR 1996 Bom 149
15
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd v Coco cola Company
 Irreparable injury is the injury which is substantial and could never be adequately
remedied or atoned for by damages, injury which cant be possibly be repaired.16

If we look in the present case, we see that the acts of the defendants will create
false notions about the plaint. which will ultimately affect the officers
investigating murder of Mr Totapuri as it may create prejudiced mindsets. This
may lead to wrong judgment being given where in an innocent person may get
punishment for what she has not done. The injury caused to Mrs Tiktiki after this
false judgment may come out to be fatal for her life. She may even never be able
to come out of this mental trauma that can be caused to her.

II. The defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

16
Multichannel india Ltd v Kavitalaya Productions Pvt Ltd AIR 1999 Mad 59