Nawab Malik’s tweets malicious, but can’t say totally false: Bombay HC | Mumbai News – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Bombay HC on Monday said NCP minister Nawab Malik’s tweets against NCB officer Sameer Wankhede are “actuated by malice and or personal animosity”, but a blanket relief to restrain him and others working under him from posting publicly any defamatory content against the officer’s family cannot be granted at this stage as sought by his father.
“At this prima facie stage and on the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that allegations made by him are totally false,” the HC said.
In the ad-interim order —urgent initial order—Justice Madhav Jamdar said though the tweets—the few that he perused—raised important issues concerning the acts and conduct of Wankhede, a public official, there has to be a balancing of right to privacy of the NCB officer’s family with Malik’s freedom of speech, as both are fundamental rights.
Verify facts before publishing or speaking, HC tells Malik
In its ad-interim order on a plea by NCB official Sameer Wankhede’s father Dhyandev Wankhede against NCP minister Nawab Malik over his “defamatory” tweets and content, the Bombay high court said on Monday, “The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. A citizen has right to safeguard his privacy, however, the defendant has made allegations against the plaintiff’s son Sameer Wankhede, who is presently posted as zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau, and therefore, he is (a) public officer. The public has the right to examine and comment on the actions of public officials.However, as held by the Supreme Court, it has to be done after reasonable verification of facts.”
The HC said, “It cannot be said that (Malik) acted after reasonable verification of the facts.”
“It is necessary to direct the defendant (Malik) that he should conduct reasonable verification of the facts before publishing, writing, speaking in media including electronic media and the social media or publishing in any manner whatsoever any content/material which amounts to defamatory (sic) of plaintiff or his family members,” said Justice Jamdar in a 50-page order. He sought a reply from Malik to Wankhede’s plea within two weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on December 20.
Malik, through senior counsel Atul Damle, had argued that Sameer Wankhede was a “Muslim” at birth and that the defamation suit is not maintainable.
Senior counsel Arshad Shaikh, for Wankhede, said Malik has not done due verification before tweeting “defamatory” content. The HC also said “it is very important to note that” Wankhede produced several documents to substantiate his contention that his “name is Dnyandeo and he belongs to “Mahar” caste, recognised as Scheduled Caste.”
“Prima facie there is substance” in Shaikh’s contention that Malik did not act after reasonable verification of facts. The HC also said, “In the present case it is true that (Wankhede) has come up with the case that his family consisting of his daughter, son and daughter-in-law is defamed, but he has also come up with (a) positive case that he himself has been defamed.” Prima facie, the suit filed by Wankhede appears to be maintainable, said the HC.
The HC went into the concepts of privacy, right to speech and reputation and said, “Reputation being an inherent component of Article 21 (right to life), it should not be allowed to be sullied solely because another individual can have its freedom. Therefore, the balance between the two rights needs to be struck. “Reputation” of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech.”
The HC said, “Right to privacy is implicit in the right to life”, and it is a “right to be let alone”. But when records are public and include court records, “right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press, media and others.” “In case of public officials right to privacy or for that matter remedy of action for damages is not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of official duties. It is to be established that such publication is totally false and that the same has been done without reasonable verification of the facts,” the HC noted.