Delhi High Court: In a defamation suit filed by India’s former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, Lakshmi Puri-petitioner, against TMC MP Saket Gokhale-respondent, for publishing a series of offending tweets against her and her husband, Hardeep Singh Puri, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., decreed the suit in Laksmi Puri’s favour and directed Saket Gokhale to pay her 50 lakhs as compensation, along with an apology, to be published on his twitter handle as well as in the Times of India (Delhi) newspaper.
Background
Lakshmi Puri, a highly accomplished person, was a former diplomat and subsequently the Assistant Secretary General of the UN as well as Deputy Executive Director of UN-WOMEN. Her husband, Hardeep Singh Puri, has also had a distinguished career as an IFS officer, served as a Permanent Representative to India to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland and New York, and has been serving as a Minister in the Central Government since 2017.
The grievance of Lakshmi Puri is that the defendant, Saket Gokhale, published a series of tweets on social media platform ‘X’, making false allegations against her and her husband, questioning the source of her finances and ownership of an apartment in Geneva, Switzerland, both being public servants.
Though no formal summons were issued in the suit, Saket Gokhale had entered appearance in the matter on advance service; and subsequently, vide judgment dated 13-07-2021, the Court directed him to delete the offending tweets and other connected tweets from his Twitter-handle. The Court also restrained him from posting any defamatory, scandalous or factually incorrect tweets against Lakshmi Puri or her husband, which he complied with and removed said tweets, and had also filed compliance affidavit. After filing of written statement on 10-02-2022, on 23-08-2022 the counsel representing Saket Gokhale sought discharge in the matter, fresh notice was issued which was duly served upon Saket Gokhale. However, he chose to remain unrepresented in the matter, due to which the Court proceeded ex-parte against him vide order dated 19-12-2023.
Contentions of Laksmi Puri
It was contended by Lakshmi Puri that contents of the offending tweets were factually incorrect, false and per-se defamatory of her and her family, and that the Saket Gokhale ought to have at least verified and confirmed facts before publishing such tweets on social media.
It was further averred by Lakshmi Puri that the offending tweets also insinuated that the property in Geneva, Switzerland could not have been purchased even with her and her husband’s income put together. Saket Gokhale then drew attention of the Finance Minister, Union Government to the Lakshmi Puri’s financial affairs, asking that her financial affairs be inquired into in the context of the Prime Minister’s promise to bring back unaccounted wealth stashed-away by Indians abroad. It was further submitted that Saket Gokhale also questioned whether Finance Minister would order an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (under the ) into how she and her husband acquired the money to buy property abroad.
Lakshmi Puri submitted that the ‘house’ in Geneva as averred by Saket Gokhale was actually an ‘apartment’. She submitted that the apartment was bought on 31-03-2005, the total cost of purchase of the apartment was Swiss Francs (CHF) 1.6 million, of which CHF 1.0 million was funded by the her through a loan from UBS Bank, Geneva, Switzerland; and the balance was funded by her daughter, who was then working as Senior Vice President with an international investment bank in New York, USA. To substantiate the submission, Lakshmi Puri also filed documents along with the plaint evidencing the loan/mortgage obtained from UBS Bank, Geneva, as well as documents showing remittance advices from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., New York, USA showing the transfer of funds by her daughter in New York, USA.
Lakshmi Puri explained that she served as Director, UNCTAD for 7 years between 2002-2009 and her total earning in the year 2005 was equivalent to USD 212,149.71 and filed an attestation from the United Nations Office evidencing the same. She further submitted that at the time she bought the apartment, her husband was posted as Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of India at Geneva, in which position, he was receiving an allowance of about USD 76,000.00 per annum, in addition to his salary from the Government of India. Therefore, during that period, their combined annual income was about USD 290,000.00. It was also contended that all documents related to the purchase of the said property in Geneva, including letters to the Ministry of External Affairs had also been submitted before the Court.
It was submitted by Lakshmi Puri that the target of the offending tweets by Saket Gokhale was not only her but also her husband, who was currently holding public office, and therefore it was politically motivated as well. She submitted that serious and irreversible prejudice had been caused to her and her family’s name and reputation as a result of the tweets, as these offending tweets were “Liked” by more than 26,270 users and “Re-tweeted” by more than 8,208 users, which implied that thousands of users had accepted and endorsed the false contents of the offending tweets.
Decision and Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the matter had “proceeded in a somewhat unusual manner” as even though Saket Gokhale had entered appearance through his counsel and filed written statement, he chose not to appear in the matter thereafter, with the Court remarking “as if he did not care about the outcome of the proceedings”, whereas Lakshmi Puri had been diligently pursuing the matter.
The Court noted that where Lakshmi Puri had deposed as to the veracity of the offending tweets in her affidavit. However, Saket Gokhale failed to even participate in the proceedings and had not cross-examined Lakshmi Puri in relation to her averments, allegations and documents. The Court observed that Lakshmi Puri had successfully discharged the burden upon her for proving the document relied upon by her, but Saket Gokhale had failed to discharge the subsequent onus upon him to disprove the same.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., , wherein it laid-down the contours and conditions of the permissible challenge that may be brought by a public official for publication of defamatory content, arising from breach of privacy relating to the discharge of their public duties. Further, it also enunciated the aspect of a publication being made in reckless disregard of truth, which is a ground for action even by a public official, and much more so by a person who has ceased to be a public official.
The Court, while deciding whether a distinction needed to be drawn when a message is put-out by a person who has followers as compared to an ordinary person, referred to observations made S.Ve. Shekher v. Al. Gopalsamy, , wherein it was held that an information or a message sent by a normal citizen and the same information/message sent by a person with a stature having followers had substantial differences, and that more popular a person is in the society, the more responsibility he carried in what he conveyed to the society.
The Court noted that Lakshmi Puri was a retired civil servant, not currently engaged in any governmental or public function, and the financial transaction that was subject matter of the offending tweets, dated back to 2005. Given that Saket Gokhale had brought up such a remote transaction at such a later stage, it was evident that he was not interested in the financial affairs of Lakshmi Puri, but her husband, Hardeep Singh Puri, who held a ministerial position in the Central Government.
The Court said that Saket Gokhale may have been curious about purchase of the apartment in Geneva, as being a parliamentarian Hardeep Puri was bound to disclose his as well as the assets of his spouse, and could have directed queries to them directly or to a proper agency, instead, he chose to publish a series of offending tweets in insinuating that the Puris had acquired the apartment through illicit wealth.
The Court remarked that “financial integrity and probity is a sine-qua-non for holding any public office. Very few allegations can hurt a person associated with public office more than an allegation of financial impropriety. It is also nearly impossible to dispel misinformation in relation to such matters, once it is disseminated to the public at large”.
The Court recalled that the counsel for Saket Gokhale had argued that there was no law that required him to seek any clarification either from Lakshmi Puri or any competent public authority before putting-out the offending tweets, and noted that such a statement by him reflected brazen callousness, and was essentially mea-culpa as to Gokhale’s reckless disregard for truth.
The Court was of the view that Saket Gokhale had put forth the tweets without reasonable verification of the facts, and was, therefore, satisfied that the offending tweets published by him had been proved to be false and actuated by malice.
The Court further observed that Saket Gokhale had a very large following on Twitter and therefore whatever he said on it had immense reach and great impact, which imposed upon him additional responsibility. In the present case, it was extremely irresponsible of him to have put-out derogatory content by way of the offending tweets, without due verification, about the financial affairs of Lakshmi Puri, which were untrue. The Court further remarked, “Regrettably, messages on social-media generate a social-media chain reaction as it were, which is no less dangerous in today’s milieu than a nuclear reaction gone out of control.”
The Court, therefore, held that the offending tweets by Saket Gokhale were defamatory, and that Lakshmi Puri had suffered undeserved legal injury to her reputation, which warranted redressal.
The Court noted that in the present case, the false contents of the offending tweets would have resulted inevitably in loss of social standing, accompanied by psychological distress, aggravated by the pain of false accusation, and directed Saket Gokhale to publish an apology on his own Twitter handle, which would be retained on his handle for a period of 6 months, and also to be prominently published in the Times of India newspaper,Delhi Edition, within four weeks, stating the following :
“I unconditionally apologise for having put-out a series of tweets against Amb. Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13th & 23rd June 2021, which tweets contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Amb. Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret.”
The Court further restrained Saket Gokhale from publishing any other tweet or any content on any social-media or other electronic platform in relation to the insinuation made in the offending tweets.
Lakshmi Mittal sought damages of Rs. 5 crores to be deposited in the PM Cares Fund, which Court found to be an unusual and untenable way of claiming damages. However, upon a balance of all considerations, Saket Gokhale was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to Lakshmi Puri within 8 weeks.
The suit was disposed of without any costs.
[Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, CS(OS) 300 of 2021, decided on 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for Plaintiff: Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Meghna Mishra, Tarun Sharma, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi, Advocates.
Advocates for Defendant: Aadhar Nautiyal, Deepak Gogia, Advocates for Defendant 2.
The post appeared first on .