Ram Jethmalani vs.

Subramaniam Swam

INTRODUCTION

Delhi High Court

Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swami

Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Delhi 300, 126 (2006) DLT 535
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

PETITIONER ………………………… RAM JETHMALANI

VS.
RESPONDENT …………………. SUBARMANIAM SWAMI

Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog

JUDGMENT DATE: On 3 January, 2006

1|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

Fact of the case

1. All the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Commission proceeded to hold an inquiry of assassination
2. When the proceedings of the Commission were in progress, on 2.6.1993.The
defendant called a press conference at Madras In the daily newspapers published in
India on 3.6.1993, In such conference the defendant stated that the Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu, Ms.J.Jayalalitha had been tipped off by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Ellam (LTTE)
3. On the assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India.
Defendant was stated to have informed the press that information of the assassination
bid was passed on to Ms.J.Jayalalitha around April 17, 1991 in Madras.
4. The defendant, newspaper reports stated that source of information claimed by the
defendant was a LTTE informer in London. Since the information published by the
press on 3.6.1993 related to the assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi
5. Justice M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry On 18.6.1993, sent a questionnaire to the
defendant .the defendant replied to the Commission as under :
6. It is significant that Ms.J.Jayalalitha neither went to receive Mr. Rajiv Gandhi at the
Madras Airport not did she make any attempt to contact him. It will be best for the
Commission to examine Ms.J.Jayalalitha and ask her
7. The plaintiff, Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court
of India. Engaged as the senior counsel by Ms.J.Jayalalitha.
8. Plaintiff cross-examined the defendant.
9. In cross-examination, defendants stated that the number of informants who gave him
the information was 3.He stated that he knew them but was not prepared to disclose
their particulars.
10. The defendant summarized his justification for the statement made by him that
Ms.J.Jayalalitha had prior information of the assassination bid by referring to five
circumstances being:
(a) Prior to the assassination, three weeks after the assassination and the first week of
July, Ms.J.Jayalalitha functioned as a propagandist of LTTE;
(b) Her refusal to address public meetings with Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi even though
she was a partner in charge of the elections jointly
(c) Her refusal to receive Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi at the Madras Airport
(d) The systematic pattern of escape from jail of hardcore LTTE personnel;
(e) And lastly, the directions to the police to enable pro-LTTE organisations to hold
public meetings.
11. Plaintiff's endeavor was to demolish the testimony of the defendant and Establish
before the Commission that the defendant was nothing but a publicity hungry stunt
man.

2|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

12. During the cross examination when the plaintiff questioned the defendant on the
credibility of his statements and Called upon the defendant to disclose the source,
repeatedly, defendant refused to disclose the source
13. Defendant was unnecessarily trying to defame Ms.J.Jayalalitha
14. Following stands recorded by the Commission during course of cross examination of
the defendant :
I. The witness was asked to apologies for his remarks against Mr. Jethmalani to the
effect that he has two wives which was not at all relevant.
II. The witness did not apologies and said that it was not derogatory and it is fact.

Law Points

Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952

Section 8(b) the Commissions of inquiry act, 1952
Section 6 of the Commissions of inquiry act ,1952
Statements made by persons to the Commission No statement made by a person in the course
of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any
civil or criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such
statement:
Provided that the statement-
a) is made in reply to a question which he is required by the commission to answer, or
b) is relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry.
Article 105(2) Constitution of India
Article 194(2) Constitution of India
Article 21 Constitution of India
Article 19(2) Constitution of India
Section 499 Indian Penal Code

3|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

LEGAL ISSUE

Following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit is barred under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952
2. Whether the offending statements/ submissions were not published by the
defendant
3. Whether the offending statements/ submissions were made in good faith and
without malice
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable much less sustainable on account of absolute
privilege;
5. Assuming that defense of absolute privilege was not available,
6. whether there was active malice proved by the plaintiff against the defendant;
7. Whether the defendant has established and proved what he had stated and
8. Whether he was required to prove the same or was it enough for the defendant to
establish that he held an honest bona fide belief.
9. To what amount of damage is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant

Case Analysis

The Commission rightly sent a questionnaire to the defendant which he dutifully

answered. Defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the
reputation of another. Plaintiff is a senior advocate in a Supreme court of India
and a Member of the Indian Parliament. He is a Professor, Symbiosis Law
College, Pune and Hony. Member of the Teaching Faculty,National Law School
of India, Bangalore. He had been elected Chairman of the Bar Council of India 3
times. Plaintiff has asserted that he enjoys considerable reputation and respect
both within and outside the country. Statements of defendant is injure his
reputation. And its publish in a newspaper . On the issue of publication, in the
context of expunction, defendant relied upon the Constitutional Bench decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as M.S.N. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha and
Ors1. Defendant make a wrong statement against bihar c.m and its publish in news
paper and court held liable defendant.

1
1959 AIR 395, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 806

4|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

Common element in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation.

Traditional defenses to an action for defamation have now become fairly
crystallized and can be compartmentalized in 3 compartments : truth, fair
comment and privilege
The plaintiff has been compelled to salvage his reputation .LTTE is a banned
organization .It is a banned organisation in India. A statement against a person
that he has been receiving money from LTTE is ex facie defamatory. Such a
person would be lowered in the esteem of the public. Plaintiff would accordingly
be entitled to some recompense.
The defendant has refused to apologize and withdraw his offending statement.
Considering the professional standing of the plaintiff and His stature in social life
award damages in sum of Rs.5 lacs in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. Costs shall follow.
Under article 21 of the indian constitution every one have to right to liberty and
defendant can’t put a questions about a personal life of a any person
Under article 105 and 194 of the indian constitution during a parliamentary
session cant make a any statement against parliamentary members .which injure
his reputation

RECOMMENDATIONS & SUGESTIONS

All the facts and circumstances relating to, the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
Defendant statement was defamative. Injures the reputation of plaintiff. Having good
reputation in society working places & also respectable position in politics, law other
fields Therefore decision of respected court was acceptable.The plaintiff deserves the
compensation

5|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

Conclusion

A good name is worth more than good riches. (Shakespear's Othello, Act-II, Scene III,
pp.167) After analyses all the facts . All statements made by a defendant is
defamatory and injure the reputation of the plaintiff . Under section 6
of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Defendant not provide proper evidence for his
statements made fair. In a defamation fair comments is not consider as a defamation
but he is not prove that .this all statements is fair. And he makes a statement regarding
plaintiff s personal life . which violate the right to liberty gives under article 21. All
aspects make defendant liable and the plaintiff deserve the compensation.

6|Page
 Ram Jethmalani vs. Subramaniam Swam

REFERANCE

STATUTES
 Constitution of India.
 Commissions of inquiry act ,1952
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ONLINE SOURCES
1. www.Manupatra.com
2. www.Indiankanoon.com
3. www.lawyersclub.com
4. www.supremecourtcases.com
BOOKS
1. Indian constitution by J.N Panday
2. Law of torts by R.K Bangia
CASE

1. M.S.N. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha and Ors.

2. Panday Surinder Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Prasad
3. Ram Krishna Dalmia and Ors. V. Justice S.R.Tendolkar ,
4. P.V. Jagannath Rao and Ors. V. State of Orissa and Ors. ,
5. Dr.Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice B.Lentin and Ors.
6. William Francis O’Connor v. Gordon Waldron
7. Janardan Karandinkar v. Ramchandra Tilak
8. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.
9. Broadway Approvals Ltd. And Anr. V. Odhams Press Ltd. And Anr
10. Telnikoff v. Maturevitch,

7|Page