The Bully Wears A Tailored Suit

Having observed the media closely in over two-and-a-half decades of my law practice, I have often told my clients that as journalists if you don’t have at least a few legal actions filed against you for your rep­ortage, you’re likely not doing your job properly! Beginning 1995, Outlook excelled as a news magazine in the face of tough and ent­renched competition. Expanding from general news and current affairs, the Outlook Group added new magazines to its portfolio by reporting on business and travel, foraying into more genres of journalism, and giving its readers high-quality content.

Perhaps the uniqueness of Outlook as a news media organisation has been the true-to-its-word, no-interference policy of its promoters and management in the editorial operations. Editors and journalists have had a free hand to carry stories, controversial or otherwise, with no compromise on investigative journalism whether relating to politicians, defence deals, trafficking of girls, corruption at the highest echelons or the workings of industrialists and the government.

ALSO READ: Silver Jubilation

True to their creed and reputation, the founding Editor-in-Chief Vinod Mehta and his successors Krishna Prasad, Rajesh Ramachandran and the current Editor-in-Chief Ruben Banerjee fearlessly spoke truth to power and, as expected, faced more than their share of legal actions. The variety of litigation faced by Outlook across the country, and abroad, ranged from civil and criminal actions in defamation to contempt of court, public interest litigation and suits claiming damages.

It has been an adventurous journey—a civil defamation suit filed in the Bombay City Civil Court for allegedly tarnishing the good name of a powerful individual; to a French corporation and related individuals filing multiple suits in the Delhi High Court claiming compensation for defaming them in rel­ation to a deal for supply of submarines to the Indian defence establishment; from getting sued by a communications giant in a Rs 500 crore claim, again for alleged defamation; to an airlines filing a damages claim for Rs 1,000 crore. Even a former Chief Justice of a State High Court claimed Rs 75 crore in damages for allegedly sullying his name; not to mention a contempt of court action that Outlook’s journalists faced in connection with the same matter. Even a now-defunct management institution was offended by Outlook’s reportage and made humungous claims in damages.

ALSO READ: Postcards From The Newsroom

Some of the most ‘interesting’ cases perhaps were the complaints seeking criminal action for defamation. Fellow journalists were some of the complainants who filed criminal complaints in the context of certain controversial tape recordings.  In some criminal cases, apart from the editors and journalist(s), the printing press and even the promoters, with absolutely no role in and no knowledge of the content published, were arrayed as accused, in a vain attempt only to have a ‘chilling effect’ and send a shiver down the spine of the entire company. One can vouch for the fact that even in the face of such provocation, the editorial and management of the company stood its ground and did not buckle. The company even withstood the serious loss of advertising revenue that publishing such content entailed.

All actions ended either in dismissal or in settlement, and happily so. The common malady with legal actions filed against publications is usually their very genesis, in that they are filed for ulterior motive. Some are filed to intimidate the publication, so that the article published is retracted or, at least no follow-up articles are published. Others are filed for the consumption of the outside world and only to assert, for the looks, that what the article said was false and that the publication will be ‘taken to task’, with no intention to follow-through on the legal action filed. Yet others are filed in impetuousness and in haste, without realising that a legal action would necessarily evoke a defence in a public trial and that real ‘defamation begins with the trial’.

Defamation law in our country, whether civil or criminal, is more often than not used for effect rather than redressal. Misplaced cultural sensitivities and trumped-up communal interpretations lead to much wasteful litigation. As far as one remembers, never once has Outlook ever retracted any piece it published, though it has always fairly offered to carry the other side’s version. The legal process has been arduous and onerous, but experience has it that honest journalism and litigative woes are inevitable companions.

ALSO READ

Silver Jubilation

Postcards From The Newsroom

At Swim, Two Birds Perched On Latticed Sites

In The Beginning, There Was The Spider

Can Machines Talk?

Future Grid

A To Z

...and Then They Cast The Net

gOoD eNgLiSh? WTF is that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The New Wealth Creators

1995: ЯƎTЯOSPECTIVE | Events, Deaths, Crossings

‘Ashwathama Hata!’

Bombay Or Mumbai? Perfectly Schizoid

A Suicide And The Politics Of Affirmative Life

Mixed Notes From The Main Underground

25 New Businesses In 25 Years

Taste The Thunder (Of Globalisation)

Way Through An Old Sieve

All Aboard With Simran!

On The Cover—A Story

In Toon With The Times

Because Every Photo Has A Story To Tell

Outlook Diary

Nisha Bhambhani, a Supreme Court lawyer, is Outlook’s legal counsel