Ambulance Scam Defamation Case: Kerala High Court Sets Aside ₹5L Award Against BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya, Remands Case

The Ambulance Scam case refers to the alleged irregularities committed in the award of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) contracts to run 108 emergency ambulance services in Rajasthan, Punjab, Kerala and Bihar back in 2010 as well as the subsequent corruption by the contractor using bogus ambulance trips. The Directorate Enforcement and the CBI had filed cases accusing several Congress leaders and company shareholders of money laundering, cheating and forgery.

The defamation suit was filed against Somaiya for making allegedly defamatory remarks regarding non-transparency in the award of contract and corruption by faking bills for bogus trips.

The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh consideration after noting that the trial court did not consider many subsequent developments and the documentary evidence relied upon by Somaiya.

Krishna and his company Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. (plaintiffs) preferred a suit before the trial court against Somaiya (defendant) alleging that he made defamatory publications on his website against them and caused damage to their reputation. They had sought Rs. 1 crore as compensation and sought an injunction to restrain further defamatory remarks.

The trial court decreed the suit in part and awarded ₹5 lakhs as compensation and restrained publication of further defamatory contents. Somaiya appealed the decision whereas Ravi and Ziqitza filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

Before the trial court, Ravi and Ziqitza contended that the defamatory publication was made only to tarnish their images and the same did not have any truth in it. According to them, they participated in the tender process and emerged as the lowest bidder, which led to them being awarded the contract.

Somaiya's stand was that the publication was made in good faith, on the basis of available materials. He further contended that he had a duty to talk about matters of public importance as an Opposition Leader and a former Member of Parliament.

He pointed out that the NHRC's enquiry revealed that the contract was awarded to the plaintiffs by ignoring a more qualified tender participant. Moreover, the imputations were later substantiated by a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), he argued. He also pointed out the case registered by the CBI.

The trial court found that Somaiya did not produce any evidence or mount the witness box to substantiate his defences of justification by truth and qualified privileged.

It rejected the evidence tendered by Somaiya and found that the CBI registered the case much after the publication whereas it is not known whether the CAG report had binding effect through acceptance by the government. The trial court also held that the report was insufficient to justify the allegation that contract in Rajasthan was obtained in a transparent manner, without influence.

Referring to the publication, the Court opined that the imputations are ex facie damaging to the plaintiffs' reputation and therefore, the question to be decided was whether it was truthful or justified.

The Court relied on precedents to hold that when the defence of justification by truth is raised by a defendant in a defamation suit, he is not dutybound to prove all of the publication to be true but it is necessary to prove that the essential or substantial part of it is true. It also took the view that the trial court ought not to have refused to accept the CAG report.

Further, the Court opined that the though the defence of qualified privilege can be invoked as done by Somaiya, he ought to have deposed regarding his good faith in making the remarks in the pursuit of his duty as a politician.

“the court was not precluded from considering subsequent events, such as the registration of the FIR and the CAG report, while evaluating the defence of justification. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant further contended that the CBI had subsequently filed a charge sheet against the plaintiffs. The above discussion compels us to conclude that the trial court committed a serious error in evaluating the basic premise of the defence… At the same time, we notice that many of the relevant documents relied upon by the defendant, including the report of the CAG, were not formally marked in evidence. The alleged report of the Health Ministry has also not been brought on record… Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the case requires to be remitted for fresh disposal after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce further evidence,” the Court observed.

The Court was of the opinion that the case has to be remanded before the trial court for fresh consideration. Thus, it allowed the appeal and the cross objection.

Case No: R.F.A.No.74 of 2018 & Cross Objection 8 of 2022

Case Title: Dr. Kirit Somaiya v. Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. and Anr. and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 438

Counsel for the appellant: L. Ram Mohan, M. Aubrey Abraham Isaac

Counsel for the respondents/cross objector: Praveen K. Joy, E.S. Saneej, Vishnu R.

Click to Read/Download Judgment