Anyone planning to file a defamation case would be well advised to seek former Advocate General of Goa Subodh Kantak’s opinion and guidance on his first hand turbulent experience with the libel law. In 2008 Subodh Kantak initiated defamation proceedings seeking from me 15 crores by way of compensation for the statements made against him. In his petition Subodh Kantak had complained that the allegations against him were mentally agonizing, inconvenient and caused him a lot of indignation while vowing to use those 15 crores for charitable causes like old age homes, orphanages and towards the welfare of animals. Few defamation cases land up in the High Court and the Supreme Court. But the Subodh Kantak case did take a long journey from the lower Court to the High Court and later to the Supreme Court. But ironically Subodh Kantak after being repeatedly fined by the Court for being absent, instead of pursuing his case decided to exit possibly realizing that he was only getting further defamed on account of the documentary evidence with which he was being confronted during his cross examination. Due to that legal battle we now have a 34 page landmark judgment passed by then Justice Nelson Britto of the Bombay High Court at Goa exhaustively outlining the parameters of cross examination in a defamation case. Goa is now set to witness another round of interesting and livid defamation proceedings. Former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Ferdino Rebello has moved the Panaji Court seeking 75 crores by way of compensation from the ‘Outlook’ magazine for the alleged defamatory article published by the magazine on 4th October 2010. Ferdino Rebello in his 75 crore suit filed through his power of attorney Advocate Mario Pinto Almeida has interestingly not invoked the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code but has taken recourse under Articles 2361,2362,2363 read with Article 2389 of the Portuguese Civil Code. Over the years courts around the world have developed case law that seeks to reduce defamation’s infringement on freedom of expression. Unlike the defamation law which seeks to limit harmful statements, freedom of expression encourages public discourse. While the debate over the defamation law continues there is a general move to protect a broader spectrum of reasoned criticism. Even where courts have found a person guilty of defamation it has recognized that imposition of sanctions can have a dangerous chilling effect on the freedom of expression. In fact, international courts have developed new ways to protect freedom of expression in defamation cases. In defamation cases truth is a complete defence as the law does not permit a person to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character he does not possess. In a civil action for defamation the claimant needs to prove that the statements injured his reputation. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove that the imputations or statements were either true or amounted to a fair comment. The feisty jurist Ferdino Rebello versus the mighty Outlook magazine legal battle is poised to be an interesting case for the legal fraternity to watch. The Court proceedings which begin on 5th of August will definitely be marred by objections and counter claims. The first possibly being that it has been filed as Justice Ferdino Rebello though he retired way back on 30th July 2011. A fierce legal combat in the reckoning.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:31:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015