Defamation, Slander, Libel are serious issues. However, most cases that
are filed in courts are the frivolous ones while the really serious instances
of wilful defamation and slander are ignored. Usually, politicians and tall
celebrities ignore slander and defamation for the simple reason that the public
doesn’t believe what is being said about them. That really is the key to
defamation: People must generally believe what is said, it must affect someone’s
reputation negatively, it must result in some kind of verifiable damage or
loss. That is usually not the case when people or entities are sued.
Some recent instances one can cite is the frequency with which Digvijay
Singh has called Baba Ramdev a ‘thug’ alleging the Yoga guru sells spurious
medicines. That is a clear case of slander which Ramdev has not acted upon. The
most vicious case of slander and defamation in recent times has to be Vir
Sanghvi calling Narendra Modi a “mass murderer”. This was repeated by Rajdeep
Sardesai in an HT summit in 2007. Both could have been in very serious trouble
had Modi chosen to sue but he let it pass. In yet another instance, tainted cop
Sanjiv Bhatt slandered Modi by calling him a “common criminal” on TV. This
again is a case of slander. And yet again, Modi has chosen to let it pass. But
the extraordinary case of defamation filed by ITC against marketing and
advertising guru Suhel Seth surely falls into the category of absurd. Read the
full report in the Economic Times titled “ITC sues Suhel Seth for Rs 200 crore overTweets”. Yes, tweets are also a form of publishing and subject to the same
defamation laws applicable to any other media. We’ll come to this case in a
while. But before that let’s look at the most bizarre case of defamation – one that
concerns Larry Flynt, founder of the porn magazine Hustler and religious leader
Jerry Falwell. In a parody of Campari ads about the “…first time”, Hustler carried a parody about Falwell.
While Hustler magazine has always been known for its explicit pictures
of nude women and for what many consider crude humour, the Protestant minister
Jerry Falwell objected to the parody ad the magazine printed in 1983 targeted
at him, in which Falwell related having an incestuous encounter….. The real ads
were tongue-in-cheek interviews with celebrities talking about their
"first time". The ads, which played off the double entendre in the
headline (“X talks about his first time”), initially appeared to discuss the
star’s first sexual experience before revealing that the discussion actually
concerned the subject's first time drinking Campari. Falwell sued Hustler and
Larry Flynt but the US Supreme court finally dismissed the case under First
Amendment rights and the fact that the public would have known it’s a parody and wouldn’t have believed the satire was
true and therefore Falwell didn’t really suffer any damage. It’s true the
US free speech law is more or less absolute unlike Indian laws.
So how exactly has Suhel defamed ITC? Here are some tweets that the
news report states ITC has claimed as defamatory:
"YC Deveshwar of ITC has had a sterling track-record of avoiding
retirement at all costs...he could also be offered to the Maosits (sic) but
then...." Okay, so that is a snide remark by an ex-Advertising consultant
to ITC, which Suhel Seth is. Is Deveshwar avoiding retirement? In the opinion of
Suhel probably and that’s his opinion. “He could also be offered to the
Maoists…” Really? Now what sane person would mistake this sarcastic remark as
being one that is really intended and meant by Suhel? Would people seriously
believe that is what Suhel desires? Hardly so!
"YC Deveshwar of ITC has just been nominated CHAIRMAN ETERNUS
(sic)...forget Emeritus..." Hahahha! I hadn’t read this before because I don’t
follow Suhel Seth on twitter, but I do find it humourous. Eternus? And that is
defamatory? The report says Suhel has even deleted some of his tweets but I can’t
see how this play of words is defamatory. Suhel has also stated that his account
was hacked but that is a defence that is unlikely to be accepted by courts.
However, I don’t believe that argument is even needed.
'Yogi Devesh will teach the insider trading course at Tihar School of
Business'. LOL! As Suhel mentions this particular tweet neither mentions
Deveshwar (ITC chairman) nor has any reference to ITC. So the mere
self-righteous assumption that this tweet refers to the petitioner is a long
shot. Even if it did, Tihar is now so much in the news for all the wrong
reasons that there is hardly regular user of twitter who hasn’t cracked a joke
or two about it.
It is quite possible that Suhel Seth is quite peeved as a businessman
in losing the large account of a company like ITC and maybe making some
statements in anger. However, I feel ITC should have just sent him a polite
letter to refrain rather than filing a suit straightaway. If this were to be
the practice all cartoonists and satirists would be facing defamatory cases
almost everyday.
The most important thing in defamation is the question whether people
or public would believe the statements being made against a person to be real. Have people stopped associating with Deveshwar or ITC because of Suhel's tweets? Have the share prices of ITC dropped because of these tweets? In this case it doesn’t appear to be so and one hopes the case will be mutually
settled instead of a court trial. What ITC must also realise is that by filing
the suit they have made even more people aware of the tweets of Suhel, which is
far worse because many, including me, hadn’t heard about these before the legal
action came about.
A previous case of
Barkha Dutt legally handling an unknown blogger made him and his post all the
more famous and widely read. Criticism, mild insults, ridicule and sarcasm
should be taken in one’s stride or at best responded to in kind. Why bring
courts into it… especially for a whopping amount of 200 Crores? Where’s our
sense of humour? Locked up in Tihar?
