Singhvi filed the suits in 2007, seeking damages of Rs. 5 crores each for the loss of his reputation.
In the first suit, Singhvi was aggrieved by an article published in the English edition of the Hindustan Times on July 19, 2002, titled “IFS Probationer Sacked After Tapes Prove Misconduct.” This suit also named Vir Sanghvi, the then Editor, and Saurabh Shukla, the correspondent, as defendants.
The second suit was filed against the Hindi edition of Hindustan newspaper, along with Mrinal Pandey and Rakesh Kumar Singh, the then Editor and Reporter. Singhvi was aggrieved by an article published on July 21, 2002, titled “शादी से इनकार करने पर अधिकारी ने युवती का जीना हराम किया।”
Singhvi contended that the articles grossly violated the norms of journalistic conduct issued by the Press Council of India. He argued that there was not an iota of truth in the facts presented in the publications regarding his conversation with a woman on tape and the alleged use of abusive and expletive language.
He contended that no such conversation ever took place with any woman at any point in time, yet the two newspapers published these “defamatory facts” against him with the ulterior motive of defaming him in public.
Dismissing the suits, the court held that in today's free world, freedom of the press is the heart of social and political discourse.
“The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society,” the court said.
The court added that the purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions, without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments.
Regarding the news article published in the English daily, Justice Krishna stated that it was a neutral reporting of an incident. The article reported that a tape containing obnoxious language attributed to Singhvi was received in the office of the MEA, and while an inquiry was being conducted, the Minister decided to discharge him without any inquiry because he was a probationary officer.
Title: MAHAVEER SINGHVI v. HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED & Ors.
