Reference To Hansa Report In Republic TV's Telecast Cannot Be Termed Illegal, Observes Mumbai Court [Read Order]

Judge CV Marathe refused to accept the plaintiff's contention that a mere reference to its report on the defendant channel is causing tremendous damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and noted that the said report is already in public domain and not only on the defendant's platform but other websites as well, thus no ground for relief is made out.

Advocate PD Gandhi instructed by Phoenix Legal submitted that right to privacy is not available to the plaintiff Company in as much as it is the individual right. Moreover, BARC is not made party to the suit, thus blanket injunction against the defendants can not be granted in terms of prayer clauses.

He tendered relevant proof and highlighted that the Hansa Report is published/available on several websites which are accessible to the public at large and the defendants only cannot be restrained. Moreover, the plaintiff Company has not prayed for damages upon the allegation that the reference of the Hansa Report in the news channel broadcast resulted in serious damages to the reputation of plaintiff Company, Adv Gandhi submitted.

He also argued that freedom of press enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by granting injunction and alleged that this is a shadow suit being filed at the behest of a third party who is named in the Hansa Report and will be benefited if injunction is granted. Therefore, he claims that balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants and plaintiff Company is not entitled for any ad-interim relief

Court observed-

"It will be important to ascertain the character, classification and status of Hansa Report. In paragraph no.5 of the plaint, it is stated that it is an internal document as a draft detailing the facts of the investigation against Mr. Vishal Bhandari, ex-employee of the plaintiff Company for his alleged inducement to the viewers to watch particular channels and this document is exchanged between the Vigilance Team of BARC and plaintiff Company. In this regard, the relationship of the plaintiff Company and BARC also assumes importance.

In paragraph no. 3 of the plaint, it is stated that BARC commissioned the plaintiff Company in the year 2014 to be part of TV Audience Measurement Process by installing barometers. The dictionary meaning of word "Commission" is "to formally choose someone to do a special piece of work, or to formally ask for a special piece of work from someone".

This demonstrates that the plaintiff is not an agent of BARC meaning thereby it is not document exchanged between the agent and Principal. The plaintiff has not tendered any non disclosure agreement between itself and BARC about the confidentiality of the communications inter se. It is also interesting to note that the plaintiff has neither filed on record relevant excerpts of Republic TV news channel dated 10.10.2020 wherein Hansa Report was referred nor filed the said Hansa Report before the Court. The plaintiff has not quoted any law which bars use of such documents in the broadcast of news channels. From all the above, the plaintiff Company itself is not clear about the character, classification and status of purported internal document i.e. Hansa Report and it has not filed the relevant excerpts of the news channel to know which report was disclosed by the defendants."

Court also recorded that the plaintiff Company is not claiming manipulation of the Hansa Report by the defendants. The only grievance raised by the plaintiff Company is that due to frequent reference of Hansa Report by the defendants on its news channel Republic TV it is causing tremendous damage to the reputation of the plaintiff Company.

Judge CV Marathe said-

"Coming to the aspect of "damage to the reputation of the plaintiff", there is a single line statement in the plaint about the same. From this mere statement one can not draw a conclusion about the quantum of damage, how the reputation of the plaintiff is damaged and which loss is caused to the plaintiff by reference of Hansa Report in the broadcast of news channel of defendants."

Court further noted-

"It was natural for the media house to use its news channel to defend itself against the charge of manipulation of TRP ratings and disclosing the documents which support their case of innocence. As shown by the defendants' learned counsel, the Hansa report is already in the public domain in as much as it is accessible to the public on multiple websites, messaging applications. Therefore, it is not a case that the defendants only accessed, used and referred Hansa Report in their broadcast but multiple websites, social media applications have also disclosed the Hansa report. The plaintiff's action against the defendants only will not prevent disclosure, circulation of Hansa Report. The supposition that disclosure of Hansa Report by the defendants in their broadcast will cause damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and use thereof by other websites and channels will not cause damage to reputation is not acceptable. Therefore, it cannot be said that reference of Hansa Report in broadcast of defendants no.1 and 2 was illegal."

Thus, Court concluded that the plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate even prima facie how irreparable loss and/or prejudice is caused by reference to the Hansa report by the defendants.

"Once, the document/ matter is in public domain it becomes a legitimate subject of comment by the press and media house among others. Therefore, I do not find merit in the allegations against the defendants and ad-interim relief is rejected" Court said.