SWAMI RAMDEV vs. JUGGERNAUT BOOKS PVT LTD & ORS

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on : 17.09.2018.
Date of decision :29.09.2018.

+ CM(M) 556/2018 & CM APPL. 19354/2018
SWAMI RAMDEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr.
Dayan Krishanan, Sr.Advs. with
Mr.Rohan Ahuja and Mr.Simranjeet
Singh, Ms. Sonali Dhir, Advocates

Versus

JUGGERNAUT BOOKS PVT LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao,
Adv., Mr. Satyajit Sarna and
Ms.Pallavi Srivastava,
Advocates for R-1
Mr. Amit Aggarwal and
Ms.Aanchal Timani, Advocates
for R-2
Mr.Vishal Rao, Adv for R-3
Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Adv. for
R-4.
Ms.Kruttika Vijay and Ms.
Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocates
for R-5

AND

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 1 of 211



CM(M) 557/2018 & CM APPL. 19356/2018
SWAMI RAMDEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul and
Mr.Dayan Krishanan, Sr.Advs.
with Mr.Rohan Ahuja and
Mr.Simranjeet Singh, Ms.
Sonali Dhir, Advocates.

versus
PRIYANKA PATHAK NARAIN & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Aggarwal and
Ms.Aanchal Tikmani,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao,
Adv., Mr.Satyajit Sarna and
Ms.Pallavi Srivastava,
Advocates for R-2
Mr.Vishal Rao, Adv for R-3.
Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Adv. for
R-4.
Ms.Kruttika Vijay and Ms.
Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocates
for R-5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner Swami Ramdev through his GPA holder Jaideep
Arya, S/o Om Prakash vide the present petitions CM(M) 556/2018
and CM (M) No. 557/2018 assails the impugned orders dated
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 2 of 211



28.4.2018 and 28.4.2018 of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
East District in MCA No.08/2017 and in MCA No.10/2017, filed by
Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain (hereinafter referred to as the Author) and
M/s Juggernaut Books Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
Publisher) respectively in the appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended, of the BOOK
― Godman to Tycoon - The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev ‖, ISBN
No.9789386228383 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the BOOK‟ ) having
been filed by the author (Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain) and M/s
Juggernaut Books Private Limited, the publisher of the BOOK
respectively, against the orders of the learned Trial Court of the ACJ-
CCJ-ARC (East) in CS No.619/2017 in the suit instituted by Swami
Ramdev through the GPA holder against Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain
the author of the BOOK herein named above. M/s Juggernaut Books
Private Limited (the Publisher), M/s Amazon India, M/s Flipkart
Internet Private Limited and M/s Manipal Technologies Limited,
arrayed as defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the said suit respectively
with the prayers made therein to the effect:
―i. To pass the order against the defendants for
restraining the defendants No.2,3 and 4 from
publishing & selling the book titled as Godman to
Tycoon; The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev as the
same violates the Fundamental Right to
Reputation as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as the defendant no.1 has
stated the contents without verifying the same.

ii. pass an order to the restrain the defendants
with effect that the Book is nothing but an attempt
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 3 of 211



to malign the image of the Baba Ramdev by the
defendant no.2,3,4 in the eyes of the public at
large, as the content/informationof the book is
nothing but representing the facts in a twisted
manner against the plaintiff.

iii. it may be declared as objectionable content
written by defendant no.1 against plaintiff in the
statements in Para no.1 &2 of page no.201 of the
conclusion of book (Godman to Tycoon, The
untold story of Baba Ramdev) more particularly
mentioned in the book are derogatory and affects
the character of the plaintiff and tarnishes the
reputation of the plaintiff and therefore be struck
down from the said book (Godman to Tycoon, The
untold story of Baba Ramdev).

iv. pass a decree of permanent injunction order
to delete those paras no. 1 & 2 of page no, 201
and other paras of book on different pages of
book or lines as the case may be from the said
book (Godman to Tycoon, The Untold story of
Baba Ramdev) and till deletion not to distribute
or sell by any means the same in market and not
to write any such defamatory statements about the
plaintiff in future.

V. to pass an order against the defendants
pending hearing and disposal of the suit
defendant and his associates, agents, distributors,
publishers be restrained by and order and
injunction from selling, distributing parting with
the book and to call for all the books from the
market containing the statements referred in
paras in the book (Godman to Tycoon, The untold
story of Baba Ramdev) to the plaint.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 4 of 211



vi. pass a decree of temporary injunction against
the defendant no.l and in favour of plaintiff by
way of restraining defendant no.l, not to give any
interview in the print media, electronic media,
social media or any kind of circulation, by which
the content of defamation may be circulated in
future.
vii. The Hon‘ble Court after declaring to the
extent as prayed above the Hon‘ble court may
quantify the Damages and grant the same to the
plaintiff alongwith interest and other incidental
charges expenses, costs and interest Pendent-lite
and future, from the date of its accrual till the
actual realization by the plaintiff.
viii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court
deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ix. to pass the order by way of declaration as
objectionable book as the content of the book is
against the plaintiff.
ix. Cost of the suit.
X. Any other order to pass, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in favour of plaintiff.‖
2. Vide the order dated 4.8.2017 which was the first order passed
in the suit by the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC, an ex parte restraint was
granted against the defendant No.2 the publisher of the said BOOK
M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. (the publisher) and the defendants
No.3 and 4 i.e.. M/s Amazon India and M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
with the direction that M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. (Publisher) was
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 5 of 211



restrained from publishing and selling the BOOK titled as ‗ Godman
to Tycoon ‘ bearing ISBN No. 978-93-8622-838-3 till further orders
and that the defendants No.3 and 4 M/s.Amazon India and M/s.
Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited were restrained from selling the BOOK
till further orders and any pending delivery of the BOOK to the buyer
was directed to be stopped immediately and the defendant No.2 M/s
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. (Publisher) was directed to issue
directions to the vendors to prevent the sale of the BOOK till further
orders of the Court and it was directed further that the said directions
were to be issued by the defendant No.2 M/s Juggernaut Books
(Publisher) by way of a public notice or any other effective means for
conveying it to all. It was also held vide order dated 4.8.2017 of the
learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC that the said order had been made without
notice of the application filed by the plaintiff i.e., the present
petitioner on his application seeking grant of an injunction because the
object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay
which would be caused during the process of serving the notice and
hearing the defendants.
3. Vide order dated 27.9.2017 of the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC, the
applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC of the plaintiff, i.e.,
the present petitioner, and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4
CPC filed by the defendants no.1 and 2, i.e., Ms. Priyanka Pathak
Narain and M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. (publisher) were disposed
of with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 filed by the
plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner, having been allowed and a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 6 of 211



temporary injunction was granted against the defendants of the said
suit as directed vide order dated 4.8.2017 in as much as the direction
that the defendants had been restrained from publishing and selling
the BOOK was reiterated with the contents of the order dated
4.8.2017 having been directed to be part of the order dated 27.9.2017.
The application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Ms. Priyanka
Pathak Narain and M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. seeking vacation
of the injunction order dated 4.8.2017 was however dismissed.
4. The appeals against the order dated 27.9.2017 i.e. MCA
No.8/17 filed by the author Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain and MCA No.
10/17 filed by M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated
27/9/2017 of the ACJ-CCJ-ARC East in suit No. 619/2017 were
allowed by the ASCJ (East) and the directions of the ACJ-CCJ-ARC
(East) dated 4.8.2017 and 27.9.2017 were set aside to the extent that
the preservation/ban imposed on the publication and selling of the
BOOK .
5. Vide the order dated 10.5.2018 in the present petitions whilst
issuing notice of the petition to the respondent, a prima facie case for
an ad interim protection by restraintment of the setting aside of the
temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was held to be made
out, it having been observed that if there was no protection granted, it
would have the potential of resulting in an irreparable loss in
reputation of the petitioner and the temporary injunction granted by
the ACJ-CCJ-ARC(East) was restored against the respondent till the
next date of hearing which was scheduled as 9.8.2018.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 7 of 211



6. The publisher M/s Juggernaut Books Private Limited and the
author Ms. Priyanka Pathak Narian being aggrieved vide order dated
10.5.2018 in CM(M) 556/2018 and 557/2018 assailed the said order
dated 10.5.2018 vide petitions in SLP(Civil) No.19050-19053/2018
before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and whilst calling upon this Court
to dispose of the petitions CM(M) No.556/2018 and 557/2018 by the
end of September, 2018 in view of the submissions made on behalf of
the respondents, herein it was directed that whilst disposing of the
Main Civil Revision, the High Court , i.e., this Court should not be
influenced by the observations made with regard to the interim order
and it was directed vide order dated 23.07.2018 by the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court to the effect:
― though ordinarily we would have refrained from
saying anything on this aspect, yet, keeping in view
the contentions advanced with regard to the
freedom of speech and expression and the rights of
an author in writing a book, we only intend to
clarify that the said observations should not
influence the adjudicatory process while dealing
with the matter finally.‖
7. Since virtually the same question of law arise in both the
petitions which relate to the impugned orders dated 28.4.2018 which
are against the orders dated 27.9.2017 and 4.8.2017 of the learned
ACJ-CCJ-ARC Judge, it has been considered appropriate to take up
both the matters together.

8. Through the petitions CM(M) 556/2018 and CM(M) 557/2018,
the petitioner submits that he is a law abiding citizen of India and is a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 8 of 211



great man of action, blessed with a versatile genius and is a
multifaceted personality. The petitioner is stated to be known as a
great visionary, highly ascetic, energetic, diligent and a simple man
with multidimensional skills and is selflessly engaged in the service of
mankind. The petitioner further submits that his ascetic discipline and
leaning towards the ancient culture and tradition has established
Patanjali Yog Peeth, an institution for treatment and research in Yoga
and Ayurveda, in Haridwar and that he, the petitioner has taken upon
himself the onerous responsibility of demystifying and popularizing
Patanjali‘s yoga with a view to give concrete shape to his dreams. The
petitioner submits that he founded the Divya Yog Mandir (Trust) in
1995 at Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, which was followed by the
Meditation Centre at Gangotri in the Himalayas, Brahmakalpa
Chikitsalaya, Divy Pharmacy, Divya Prakasha, Divya Yog Sadhana,
Patanjali Yogpeeth (Trust) in Delhi in 2005, Patanjali Yogpeeth,
Hardwar, Mahashaya Hiralal Arsh Gurukul, Kishangarh Ghaseda,
Mahendragarh, Haryana, Yog Gram and recently the Bharat
Swabhiman (Trust) in Delhi and that the petitioner is the Brand
Ambassador of the Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. having a turnover of more
than Rs.10,000 Crores, and it is further submitted by the petitioner
that due to his tremendous popularity, the sale of Patanjali Ayurveda
Ltd. has catapulted to a level challenging all the MNCs in FMCG
sectors.
9. The petitioner has further submitted that because of the constant
efforts and endeavours of the petitioner, Yoga has become a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 9 of 211



household name across the nation and because of his persistent
contribution in the fields of Yoga, Ayurveda and Swadeshi, he is thus
revered as a ‗Yog Guru‘ and he has followers not only across the
nation but across the globe as well. The petitioner further submits that
for his highly epoch-making works, various honours/honorary
doctorates have been conferred on him in India and abroad by
Universities and on the invitation of the Secretary General of the
U.N.O., the petitioner has led the stand-up program to pass the
resolution against poverty eradication from the whole world, at the
th
United Nation Organization‘s head-quarter in New York, on 15
October, 2006. It is stated that in January, 2007, KIIT University
awarded the Petitioner with an Honorary Doctorate degree in
recognition of his efforts at popularizing the Vedic Science of Yoga.
It is averred further that the degree was presented to him in a
ceremony presided over by the respected scientist and Nobel Laureate
Richard Ernst. It is further mentioned that the Yoga camps organized
by the petitioner attract large number of people from all walks of life
in India and all over the world and that in 2017, on the third edition of
the World Yoga Day over three lakh people attended the said event
led by the Petitioner at GMDC grounds Ahmedabad, Gujarat which
was the largest yoga event ever organized.
10. The petitioner further submits that the BOOK written by
Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain and published by the respondent No.2 M/s
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. is an unauthorized biography on the life of
the petitioner and has been published by the respondent no.2 and that
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 10 of 211



the same contains false and defamatory material which has been
written without any knowledge or consent of the Petitioner and
without verification of facts. It is further submitted that the BOOK is
extremely defamatory in nature and also infringes upon the right to
privacy of the petitioner as the same contains material which pertains
to the private life of the petitioner and reputation which has been
recognized as a fundamental right.
11. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2
released/published the said defamatory BOOK on 29.7.2017 and that
on 1.8.2017 the petitioner through his followers and GPA holder
learnt about the release of the said BOOK and thus the petitioner
executed a GPA in the favour of the GPA holder.
12. The petitioner submits that the writings incorporated and the
publication of the said BOOK containing the stated defamatory
statements against the petitioner had been published with the sole
objective of lowering the name, image, esteem, reputation and
goodwill of the petitioner in the eyes of the common man in general
and that the contents of the said BOOK are not only wrong, false,
manipulated, misleading and per se defamatory , but are aimed to
prejudicially affect the name, reputation and goodwill of the petitioner
and further to stir a controversy in order to garner publicity for the
said BOOK .
13. The petitioner further submits that such a vilification
publication has since been deliberately intensified by the respondents
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 11 of 211



with the intention to defame and project the petitioner in a bad light.
The petitioner has excerpted certain portions of the BOOK as follows:
―(i) At page no. 105 of the book
When Ramdev's Guru Mysteriously Disappeared...
A year after Ramdev had a successful run in the United
Kingdom and delivered a speech at the Unite Nations in
New York came plans for a yoga tour of the United States.
But Ramdev himself missed something brewing in his own
backyard. Amid his heady successes, and hectic travel, he
failed to see that his guru Shankar Dev was ailing,
increasingly unhappy and isolated in his own home,
Kripalu Bagh Ashram. For instance, Shankar Dev, who
was the convener of the Divya Yog Mandir Trust, was not
on the boards of any of the new companies that were set up
by Ramdev. But what Ramdev could not see, though it was
in plain sight, many in Haridwar saw. Several remember
the swiftly ageing Shankar Dev, ravaged by spinal
tuberculosis, becoming increasingly frail and forlorn. It
was when Ramdev was in Chicago that news came from
Kankhal On 14 July 2007, Shankar Dev disappeared.
Vanished without a trace. He left, that morning for his
usual walk and simply did not return. It may have been
devastating news for Ramdev. Or maybe it was just
'inconvenient timing. With the Chicago schedule drawing
to a close, Ramdev had to choose: Should he go on to
London, where the House of Commons planned to receive
and honour him, or should he send his regrets and rush
hack to Kankhal to lead the search for his missing guru?
Usually once a disciple takes deeksha, or initiation into the
sacred, from his guru, he establishes a bond with him.
Ramdev had not just taken deeksha from. Shankar Dev but
also accepted saffron robes from him -that is, he renounced
the world. From the moment he look the saffron robes from
Shankar Dev, that guru- shishya relationship was meant to
become the central fulcrum of his life. From that moment
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 12 of 211



onward, Ramdev was supposed to consider his guru as his
spiritual and temporal father and mother.
(ii) At page no. 110 of the book
The Cryptic Note Left Behind in Shankar Dev's Room...
"There is no way of knowing what Ramdev truly felt when
he heard of the disappearance or if he struggled with the
decision or for how long, but in the end he decided to carry
on with his tour. The day after his aides filed a missing
person's report at Kankhal police station, on 18 July 2007,
Ramdev attended a ceremony at the British House of
Commons in his honour. An investigation began in India,
but clues were scarce. A cryptic note was found in Shankar
Dev's room; I have taken some loan from you for this trust
but I cannot repay it Please forgive me. I am leaving. He
was seventy-seven years old. The note raised more
questions than/it answered: Exactly how much did this old
man who continued to live as simply as before Ramdev's
meteoric rise borrow that he could not repay the sum ?
Why did he borrow it? When had he taken the loan? And
from whom? More importantly why did Ramdev, sitting
atop an empire worth at least Rs 100 crore, not repay the
loan Why did Shankar Dev not ask him for help? Or had
he? ...When Ramdev returned to India, more than three
weeks had passed since Shankar Dev's disappearance. He
summoned a press conference in Haridwar, remembers the
Jansatta reporter and Haridwar resident Sunil Pandey. At
the press conference he was saying how Shankar Dev was
like a father to him and how sad it was ... I asked him that
if he really was like a father to him, why didn't he come
back?' I was in the US, conducting ramps,' answered
Ramdev. 'Well, if a family member disappeared, one would
come back, isn't it?' Pandey pressed Ramdev. 'If 1 knew he
was alive, I would have,' replied Ramdev. 'So you are
admitting that you know that he is dead?' demanded
Pandey. That was the suspicion in everyone's minds.
Stunned, realizing he had misspoken, Ramdev fell silent"
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 13 of 211



(iii) At Page No. 113-114:
"...Across the country, Ramdev's star was ascendant. It was
only in October 2012, five years after Shankar Dew's
disappearance, that the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), India's apex investigative agency, initiated a probe
to find him. In his inimitable style, Ramdev welcomed the
investigation on the one hand, but also attacked the CBI
and the government, accusing them of a politically
motivated conspiracy to frame him in the case. Given the
sour relationship between Ramdev and the Union
government at that time, his allegation did have some
credence. Whatever the CBI's initial motivations, it was
widely reported that it initiated a move to close the case in
December 2014 - by this time the Narendra Modi led
government had taken charge at the Centre –because the
agency had failed to make any headway. The special CBI
magistrate in Dehradun set the date for the next hearing as
12 January 2015 but this is where the public case file goes
cold. It's hard to ascertain what happened thereafter. "
"While a right to information (RTl) request I filed with the
CBI in Delhi met with the response that the CBI was not
covered by the RTI, another filed in Dehradun met with the
response that the CBI does not answer questions on open
cases. Ergo, the case is still open."
The Respondent No. 1 has given false information in her
book regarding the above-mentioned court proceedings. It
has been projected as if the investigation was influenced
and case file was being surreptitiously handled. However,
as per the judicial records available, it is clearly evident
that vide order dated 13.02.2013 the Hon'ble Court had
duly accepted a Closure Report filed by the CBI. It is
further submitted that the Respondent No. 1 has falsely
projected that the complaint is still pending and no action
has been taken since January 2015. The same is done by
the Respondent No. 1 only with an intention to defame the
Petitioner. It is relevant to point out that despite judicial
records being publically available to the Respondents,
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 14 of 211



deliberately did not mention the same while authoring and
publishing the book in question.
(iv) At page no. viii
"Ramdev's first serious falling out was with Karamveer
Maharaj, his first mentor, the man who taught him how to
teach yoga."
(v) At page no. 70
"As mentioned earlier, in 2003 Divya Pharmacy had
abruptly changed the vaidya on its registration from Swami
Yogananda to Sri Saty Pal Singh. Yogananda is said to
have had a falling out with Ramdev's increasingly powerful
enterprise but the reasons for this are still unknown. "
"With Yogananda's death, a key associate who had
provided critical help to Ramdev in his early days was
gone. The murder remains unsolved till date. Ten months
later, on 25 October 2005, investigating officer B.B. Juyal
filed his final report in the case - Case unsolved.
Perpetrators unknown.""
14. The petitioner thus submits that such imputations made by the
Respondent No. 1 are effectively projecting to the world at large that
the Petitioner is not a Sanyasi and has violated his vows by indulging
in greed for money and power. He submits that these statements have
been made falsely without being substantiated by any particulars and
constitute defamation as the said imputations made by the Respondent
No. 1 are clearly to harm the reputation of the Petitioner. It is stated
that the aforesaid allegations are made in a calculated manner in order
to bring disrepute to the Petitioner. The petitioner submits further that
false allegations have been made regarding fudging yoga camps and
that the allegations have only been made with an oblique motive to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 15 of 211



defame the Petitioner and have been made in a calculated manner in
order to bring disrepute to the petitioner.
15. The petitioner has also referred to the observations at page 121
to 128 Chapter 18 ― The Astha Takeover ‖ written in the said BOOK
submitting to the effect that there is no means to verify the story put
forth by the author. The petitioner submits that the author projected
that the petitioner took over the television Channel ―Aastha‖ in a
hostile manner and that the respondent No.1, i.e., the author, herself
admitted that there were no means to verify the story of ‗Mehtas‘‘.
The petitioner further submits that vide Chapter 4 at Page No.38 the
observation therein,: ―But the ever-pragmatic, Ramdev understood
that refusal to accept discipleship could mean losing the ashram.‖
16. The petitioner also placed reliance at page No.77 Chapter 11
―Old Mentor Exits‖ which reads as under :
―Remember, Ramdev was compelled to
accept saffron robes from Shankar Dev-and
take these oaths- in order to be able to
inherit Kripalu Bagh Ashram.‖

17. The petitioner has further drawn the attention of the Court to
the objections made at page 39 which reads to the effect:
―But being a renunciate came with its own
benefits: Ramdev‘s new saffron robes would
automatically confer upon him great respectability
and ensure that people would judge ‗him by a
different yardstick.‖

The petitioner submits that false allegations have been an
attack on the core identity of the petitioner as being a Sanyasi, and
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 16 of 211



have been made in order to cause distrust amongst his followers and
lower his reputation in the eyes of the public at large.
18. The petitioner also placed reliance on excerpts in various other
chapters in the BOOK which read to the effect as under:
(xi) At page no. 54, Chapter 7: TV Star
"From this point on, befriending government officials and
politicians, both in and out of power, would become a
trademark growth strategy of Baba Ramdev's."
The petitioner thus contended that the author had further
made assertions that the Petitioner is an unscrupulous
businessman and has succeeded through creating
connections with various government officials and political
personalities.
(xii) At page no. 64-65 Chapter 8: Friends in High
Places
"Politicians and businessmen were quick to sense the new
power rising in Haridwar. They came bearing gifts, offers
of friendship, proposals for alliances. Ramdev shrewdly
recognized two people who could do the most for him- the
colourful chief minister of Uttarakhand, Narayan Dutt
Tiwari, and fellow Yadav and chief minister of Uttar
Pradesh, Mulayam Singh-both ofwhom took him under
their wing."
(xiii) At page no. 95-96 Chapter 13: Enter Brinda Karat
"...politicians across the country began speaking in his
defense, it was difficult not to speculate: Were parties
pledging allegiance to Ramdev because they were also
sensing an opportunity for a political alliance? Were they
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 17 of 211



thinking: Stay on his right side today and he can swing
voters for you tomorrow?"
(xiv) At page no. 145-146, Chapter 20: Anna Movement
"Two days after the fast began, the quiet, drained Anna
Hazare, was eclipsed by the colourful, orange-robed
Ramdev who had a knack for drawing and mesmerizing
'an audience."
"Ramdev had flawlessly managed to inveigle himself on
to a national stage 'and establish-himself as an integral
leader of India's anti-corruption movement. He smoothly
abandoned his old allies in the Congress who had helped
him build Patanjali."
It is submitted that these assertions have been made by
the Respondent No.l without any verification and without
obtaining consent from the Petitioner, The aforesaid
allegations have been made against the Petitioner with
the sole intent to discredit the Petitioner in the eyes of his
followers and public at large.
(xv) At page 163, Chapter 22: CEO,
"when Ramdev bullied Patra into joining Patanjali
Ayurved Ltd..."
However, on a reading of the same chapter it can be
clearly seen that he joined the company on his own free
will,
(xvi) At Page 201:
"A trail of people whose goodwill or frailties he used to
further his own enrichment and pursue his own agenda,
people who were left by the wayside after they had served
their purpose. A trail of people who either vanished into
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 18 of 211



thin air, or died mysterious deaths, or live on in utter fear
of him. A trail of decisions and political machinations
driven not by the principles he espouses but by
expediency."
(xvii) Page: 202
"All Ramdev's former allies, aides, supporters and
mentors who had watched him rise hut has fallen by the
wayside at some point seemed to have been waiting for a
call like mine, from anyone, at all, asking them about
their time with Ramdev. They were all ready to tell their
stories." "For every negative event surrounding him, he
has consistently yelled foul, always choosing to lay the
blame at someone else's door."
(xviii) Page 204-205:
"Ramdev strayed into politics accidentally, not by design.
After he met Rajeev Dixit, it just sort of happened: he
tries to harness his fame as a sadhu-cum-yoga teacher to
propel himself on to a larger platform and dreamt of his
own political party. But somewhere along the way
Ramdev seems to have decided against trying to become a
mainstream political player and instead use his political
power and it is undeniably clear that he does have
political power thanks to his popularity among people to
further his business interest Ramdevs politics now plays a
supporting role for his business empire and that's not a
failure as much as a sensible, pragmatic realignment. But
pragmatism and taking utilitarian, hard-boiled decisions
second nature for Ramdev, It is easy to forget that
Ramdev was not always a BJP ally. Once upon a time he
was the protege of the Congress, willing to hijack the
VHP-RSS agenda to hand over a victory to allies in, the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 19 of 211



Grand Old Party. Without his old Congress allies, and
their largess- land discounts, permissions, loan approvals-
Ramdev could not have become as powerful as he had in
the first place. 'Yet when he realized the Congress was a
sinking ship and fell out with his earlier godfathers, he
negotiated a safe landing space with the VHP-RSS-BJP
combine. Smoothly, courageously, he abandoned the
Congress party,becoming part of the battering ram that
brought it down. Ramdev is said to have helped the BJP
with the 2014 general election campaign and is now
apparently reaping 'rewards for that service. In May
2017, a Reuters article alleged that according to
(unpublished) documents examined by them, Ramdev has
received, 46 million dollars in land allocations and
discounts from BJP-led state governments."
(xix) Page 206:
"When denied political domination, he chose to harness
politics to seek economic domination."
(xx) At Page 208:
"Most important, is he willing to play by the rules of the
society he lives in and hold himself up to the laws that
ordinary businessmen have to adhere to? Is he ready to
stop using his saffron robes as a holy shield against
public scrutiny?"
19. The petitioner submits that on a bare perusal of the contents of
the BOOK , it was evident that the respondents have deliberately
published the BOOK with a view to damage and tarnish the
reputation of the petitioner and that the respondent author has
authored and the publisher has and published defamatory, derogatory
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 20 of 211



and vexatious material about him intentionally despite the same being
false and untrue thus causing wrongful loss to the petitioner and gains
to the respondents.
20. The petitioner further submits that the right to reputation has
already been recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and that the entire BOOK is based on
perceptions and interviews allegedly gathered from third parties
without any authorization & permission from the petitioner. The
petitioner thus submits that whatever is mentioned in the BOOK is
merely a surmise of what the respondent author has understood from
the alleged interviews. The petitioner further states that the BOOK
has been authored and published by the respondents without any
verification of the contents that have been allegedly sourced from
anonymous microscopic interviews, YouTube Videos and online
articles with the sole intent to discredit the petitioner in the eyes of his
followers and the public at large and thus the same cannot be allowed
to be made freely available for the public at large.
21. The petitioner has further submitted that the publisher M/s.
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. through its author Priyanka Pathak Narain
has deliberately with a view to damage and tarnish the reputation of
the petitioner authored and published defamatory, derogatory and
vexatious material about him intentionally despite the same being
false and untrue thus causing wrongful loss to him and to his
reputation by quoting alleged interviews of other persons and also
relied upon on unverified news articles and it is sought to be
submitted by the petitioner that through the BOOK published by M/s.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 21 of 211



Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. false statements had been made that the
petitioner was responsible for not allowing the post-mortem of Mr.
Rajeev Dixit and that it is somehow associated with the petitioner but
that the medical record and death certificate of Mr. Rajeev Dixit
clearly stated that he had died because of a cardiac arrest. The
petitioner has submitted that these reports have never been challenged
nor is there any investigation pending before any authority and that
M/s. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. has chosen to publish the false and
defamatory statements against him solely relying on interviews and
news articles and not the public records.
22. The petitioner has further submitted that the BOOK is
admittedly a biography by its author Priyanka Pathak Narain arrayed
as the respondent no. 1 to CM(M) 557/18 and arrayed as the
respondent no. 2 to CM(M) 556/18 and submits that the BOOK
contains various chapters of his personal life and thus before such
publication, consent ought to have been taken from him by and that
this fact was also evident from the authors‘ note which is to the
effect:-
―I imagined that their memories, anecdotes, tales of how
Ramdev inspired and transformed their lives would be far
more interesting story than Ramdev‘s version of it.‖

23. The petitioner has further submitted that the publication by the
respondents no. 1 & 2 about the details of the personal life of the
petitioner without his consent and due authorization is a violation of
his fundamental right to the privacy and the reputation under Article
21 of the Constitution of India and that the said respondents i.e. M/s.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 22 of 211



Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. and Priyanka Pathak Narain have
incorrectly alleged that the information published about the petitioner
was completely verified and had sought to justify the contents of the
BOOK mentioned between pages 209 to 234 of the BOOK . The
petitioner further submits that the said BOOK has been authored and
published by the respondents without any verification of the contents
sources from unanimous interviews, YouTube videos and online
articles and the sources are the hearsay evidence and reliance would
not be placed upon them.
24. The petitioner further submits that the learned Trial Court of the
ACJ-CCJ-ARC(East) had rightly granted an ad interim injunction in
favour of the petitioner whereby restraining the respondents
publishing, distributing and selling the said BOOK and that the
application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC that had been filed by the
respondents had also been declined appropriately vide order dated
27.09.2017 by the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC (East) but that vide order
dated 28.04.2018 in MCA No. 8/2017 and MCA No. 10/2017 which
had been filed by the author and the publisher respectively, the
learned ASCJ-GJ erroneously set aside the order dated 04.08.2017
and 27.09.2017 of the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC (East) in complete
disregard to the settled principles of law with regard to the writing of
unauthorized biographies and the right to privacy and reputation of an
individual.
25. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the respondents
have incorrectly alleged that the information published about the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 23 of 211



petitioner is derived from public records and have sought to justify the
contents of the BOOK by relying upon sources mentioned between
pages no. 209 to 234 of the BOOK . The petitioner submits that the
sources mentioned in the BOOK are in the nature of magazine and
newspaper publications, online articles, YouTube videos and some
unverified private interviews and that these sources are in the nature
of hearsay evidence and no reliance can be placed upon them in order
to establish the contents of the BOOK and that the same are
completely unconfirmed and inherently opinionated under Section 74
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is reproduced to the effect : -
―74. Public documents.-The following documents
are public documents:-
[1] Documents forming the acts, or records of the
acts
[i] of the sovereign authority,
[ii] of officials bodies and tribunals, and
[iii] of public officers, legislative, judicial and
executive, [of any part of India or of the
Commonwealth], or a foreign country;
[2] Public records kept [in any State] or private
documents.‖

26. The petitioner further submits that the author has relied on
unverified personal interviews, around 139 online articles websites,
magazines, and around 39 YouTube Videos and only 15 official
documents and such reliance is completely misplaced on the basis of
which the publication has been done by M/s. Juggernaut Books Pvt.
Ltd. and the same cannot be treated as public records nor can the same
be accepted as legally admissible evidence. The petitioner has further
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 24 of 211



submitted that the mala fides of the respondents in authoring and
publishing these defamatory and false allegations is evident from their
refusal to refer to official documents that clearly belie their innuendos
and that it has been published by the respondents at pages 105, 110
and 113-114 of the offending publication that the petitioner had
something to do with the disappearance of Shankar Dev and that
subsequently the investigation into the incident was influenced by the
government due to which it is unclear from the public record as to
what happened thereafter and the petitioner submits that the
respondents no. 1 & 2 have mischievously and with an intent to
defame the petitioner not made any reference to order of the Special
Judicial Magistrate (CBI)/ACJM(I) Dehradun dated 13.02.2015
whereby the Magistrate after due application of mind has accepted the
closure report of the CBI thus belying all claims and innuendos
authored and published by the respondents no. 1 & 2.
27. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that it was not out
of place to mention that the same was freely and publicly available
much prior to the publication of the BOOK and the Respondents were
duty bound to report the same but have instead chosen to conceal it
with a view to create false allegations and suspicion on the Petitioner
and project a view that the investigation was somehow influenced and
the case file was being surreptitiously handled and that the Petitioner
was somehow responsible for the disappearance of Swami Shankar
Dev.
28. The petitioner further submits that the respondents had made
false allegations while presenting even official documents so as to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 25 of 211



raise an aura of suspicion and that it was mentioned at page 70 of the
offending publication by the respondents that the petitioner had
something to do with the murder of Swami Yogananda and that the
petitioner further submits that it had been represented as if the
Investigating Officer had filed some variety of an extra-ordinary
report by stating that the perpetrators were unknown and that there
was mischief by the respondent no. 1 with the sole intention of
creating an aura of suspicion so as to defame the petitioner in not
clarifying that such reports are called ‗Untrace Reports‘ which are
common place.
29. The petitioner further submits that the mala fides of the
respondents in authoring and publishing these defamatory and false
allegations is evident from the fact that the allegations and
insinuations are baseless and there is no material to support them and
that there are no materials to support in relation to the innuendo that
the petitioner has friends in high places and has been benefiting from
political largesse, published at Page 64- 65, 95-96, 145-146 and 204-
206 of the offending publication putting forward that there has been
no impropriety in the relationship of the petitioner with any political
figure, past or present, and no aspect of his relationship has ever been
called into question by investigation. The petitioner further submits
that the petitioner had approached the court as soon as the contents of
the BOOK in question came to the knowledge of the petitioner in as
much as the BOOK was launched on 29.07.2017 and the suit was
filed on 03.08.2017 and the the Ld. ACJ had granted an ex parte
injunction in favour of the petitioner on 04.08.2017.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 26 of 211



30. The petitioner further submits that he had no prior knowledge
of the release of the BOOK as the respondents had never sought any
consent from him. The petitioner further submits that after the order
dated 28.04.2018, the respondent No.l in order to leave no stone
unturned to defame and further cause irreparable loss and injury to
him had started distributing the BOOK in question for free on its
Website and Mobile Application till 01.05.2018 as per the knowledge
of the petitioner and that thereafter, the respondents in continuation of
their nefarious designs are selling the BOOK at Rs. 50/- as compared
to the M.R.P. of Rs. 300/- printed on the BOOK itself with the sole
intention of increasing the circulation of the BOOK in order to
defame him.
31. Through the written submissions that had been submitted on
behalf of the author before the learned Trial Court, it was submitted
that the author stood by the BOOK and categorically asserted that
nothing contained therein is false and all statements made in the
BOOK can be justified and that the BOOK has been written with
journalistic objectivity in a fair and impartial, manner and in good
faith for public good. The author emphatically submitted that nothing
contained in the BOOK was defamatory to Plaintiff and submitted
that the BOOK has to be read as a whole and stray sentences cannot
be picked out whilst determining whether a work such as the BOOK
is defamatory or not. The author further submitted that the entire
BOOK is fully protected amongst others under Article 19(l)(a) of the
Constitution of India guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression
to all citizens and the grant of reliefs claimed in the plaint will
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 27 of 211



infringe the freedom of profession and occupation of the author
guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India as a
journalist and a writer. The author further submitted that the question
of freedom of speech and expression involved, in the instant case was
not only of the author or of the parties to the instant case but also of
the thousands of others (of their right to read and right to know) who
are not party to the present suit, and who may eventually be deprived
of the opportunity of reading and analyzing for themselves the
contents of the BOOK . The author further submits that citizens and
non-citizens have legitimate and substantial interest in knowing about,
reading about and scrutinizing the conduct of the public figures
including the events and mysteries surrounding their allies or,
acquaintances and the Public has an interest, and in fact a deep
interest, in knowing all sides to the persona of and events surrounding
a public figure and that no illegality has been committed by the author
in authoring and getting the BOOK published and that in
contemporary democratic societies, public speech has to be diverse,
and a speech of value will perforce be critical of public institutions
and individuals.
32. Inter alia, the author has put forth her credentials submitting
that the author has graduated from Columbia Journalism School, in
2007, and she had written about the business of religion at Mint (a
widely circulated national newspaper) between 2007 and 2013 and
she is the winner of CNN Young Journalist Award for her coverage
of the Setusamudram channel, project in 2007. The author further
submitted that she is a contributing writer for Dharavi: The City
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 28 of 211



Within , and occasionally writes for the New York Times and the
Conde Nast Group and has adopted a methodology for the BOOK
which is consistent with the recognized methods of journalism and
that the methodology adopted for the BOOK by her is best summed
up in her ‗ Note‘ (as noted in Author's Note' in the Book):
"...The only way to tell his story, 1 believed, was
to tell it through the voices of all the people he
worked with along the way to building his
empire, those who'd had a chance to meet him in
unguarded moments. I imagined that their
memories, anecdotes, tales of how Ramdev
inspired and transformed their lives would be
a far more interesting story than Ramdev's own
version of it....
….
…..
.... For a complete list of interviewees and
sources for each chapter, please refer to 'Sources'
at the end of the book."

33. Inter alia, the author submitted that an individual, least of all a
public figure like the Plaintiff, i.e, the present petitioner, who is
"worshipped as a Godman" as per averments in paragraph 2 of the
plaint, who himself claims to have followers "not only across the
nation but across the globe" as per the averments in paragraph 2 of the
plaint, should not seek to silence any speech or expression merely
because it is not what he may want to hear and in any case and that the
BOOK has not been and cannot be perceived to be defamatory by any
reasonable person, that substantial contents of the BOOK are fairly
laudatory of the Plaintiff, i.e. the present petitioner, whenever the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 29 of 211



context so warranted and that the public figures like the Plaintiff i.e.
the present petitioner cannot be too thin skinned in reference, to the
comments or observations or opinions expressed to them or events
related to them even if they have nothing to do with them. The author
further submitted that the factum that the plaintiff of the suit, i.e. the
present petitioner herein, is a public figure having exceedingly wide
following and media presence as depicted in the BOOK itself by the
following portions which have not been objected to by the plaintiff to
the suit, i.e. the present petitioner herein,
"...Soon after Patanjali launched noodles,
Ramdev began spending on traditional
advertising in a big way. For nine of the
following twelve weeks, Patanjali topped the
weekly list of total ad insertions, according to the
television viewership measurement agency
Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC)
India. Its weekly television ads more than
doubled from 11,897 in the first week of January
2016 to 24,050 in the week ended 25 March.
During the same period, Ramdev appeared
2,34,934 times across TV channels, which means
he was on air every 30 seconds on one channel
or another. He never looked back...."
34. The author has further submitted that she stands by the truth
of the statements contained in the BOOK which she states have been
written based on publicly available documents and recorded
interviews and have been published after due verification to the
maximum extent possible for a journalist. The author further submits
that in any case, truth itself is a multilayered phenomenon, as one
person's truth is other person's falsity and that what one Court finds as
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 30 of 211



truth from a set of circumstances, statements and evidences, the
Appellate Court may not, and so on and so forth and that from the
same set of circumstances different Courts have been long known to
come to different findings and that there is nothing known as absolute
truth. The author further submits that assuming what emerges out of
the process of judicial trial is a truth, should the freedom to express or
write or publish or to read and know be made contingent upon every
set of events and circumstances being put to a judicial trial first and
which is not the only way to ascertain the truth or else, the country or
societies will not have any newspapers or magazines and that the truth
is a matter of perception, and in a democratic society the standard has
to be a reasonable one or fair reporting as a matter of law. The author
further submits that the speech and expression which is premised on
honest belief or which amounts to fair comment, should not be
silenced and cannot be silenced and that the burden to prove that it is
not so, rests solely on the shoulders of the Plaintiff.
35. The author has further submitted that various portions/aspects
of the BOOK which seem objectionable to the Plaintiff, i.e., the
present petitioner herein, which are not necessarily actionable in law,
according to the author have also been stated in words far more
uncharitable to the Plaintiff, i.e. the present petitioner herein, in
different forms previously by the media (print and electronic media)
and have remained in public domain and that the Plaintiff, i.e., the
present petitioner herein, a public figure, cannot be ignorant of these
prior publications. The author further submits that the Plaintiff, i.e.,
the present petitioner herein, has waived his right to object to it and
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 31 of 211



also acquiesced in the publications/statements contained in the BOOK
and that the Plaintiff i.e., the present petitioner herein, is guilty of
suppression of the previous publications which amounts to
suppression of facts and the Plaintiff i.e., the present petitioner herein,
should not be permitted to proceed any further on this ground alone.
The author further submits that the plaintiff‘s statement i.e., the
present petitioner herein, that the BOOK is not based on public
records is false, and has been made dishonestly by suppressing the
relevant media reports and documents. The author further submits that
the Plaintiff‘s action, i.e., the present petitioner herein, also suffers
from delay and laches and considering the media reports on various
aspects of the BOOK which seem to have been objected to in the
plaint have remained in public domain for long and that the Plaintiff
i.e., the present petitioner herein cannot, complain of any legal injury
having been caused to him by the publication and circulation of the
BOOK or being caused by further circulation of the BOOK .
36. The author has put forth the extracts of a few publications
stated to be existing in the public domain prior to publication of the
BOOK are as under:
“

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 32 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 33 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 34 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 35 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 36 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 37 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 38 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 39 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 40 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 41 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 42 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 43 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 44 of 211

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 45 of 211

37. The author has further submitted that the plaintiff, i.e. the
petitioner herein, has in fact twisted and misrepresented the facts in
the plaint and various paragraphs which have been quoted in the plaint
are in fact assimilation by the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner, of
different portions of the BOOK in an unfair manner, and sub-
headings to the portions quoted in the plaint in fact do not even exist
in the BOOK .
38. The author further submits that the statements in the plaint are
extremely vague, and adversely impacts the author in conduct of her
defence in as much as the Plaintiff i.e., the present petitioner herein,
has not pleaded with any clarity or specificity of the alleged
defamatory/objectionable portions of the BOOK or the meanings of
the portions of the BOOK that the plaintiff i.e., the present petitioner
herein, considers to be defamatory. The author further submits that
the entire plaint on a meaningful reading does not disclose any cause
of action in relation to the BOOK and that even if the entire plaint is
to be taken in its face value, the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner
herein, is not entitled to any relief.
39. Inter alia, the author submitted that the suit has not been
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 46 of 211



properly instituted and has been instituted on a power of attorney
which has not been duly executed.
40. The author further submits that the plaintiff i.e., the present
petitioner herein, has not valued the suit nor valued the suit properly
and the relief of damages has not even been quantified and that the
requisite court fees has not been paid by the plaintiff, i.e., the present
petitioner herein, on the plaint and that a suit which is not valued
properly and which is accompanied with insufficient court fee is non
est in law and immunity from litigation unless appropriate court fees
has been paid on the plaint is a valuable right of the defendant, i.e., the
respondent No.1 to the present petition,i.e., the author. The author
further submits that no useful purpose would be served by the grant of
relief of permanent injunction or declaration as prayed for in the plaint
by the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner herein, that many copies of
the BOOK have already been sold and circulated by the publisher
prior to the date of the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated
04.08.2017.
41. Reference was further made by the author to the requisite
articles published in Economic Times or articles or those available on
internet www.devbhoomi.com/god-man-to-tycoon. It is further
submitted that the excerpt " pair dabakar sant bane, gala dabakar
mehant, kuch yun bataya gaya baba ramdev ka sach " is not a part of
the BOOK and is not even alleged to be a part of the BOOK . The
author further contended that whether it would be slanderous or not if
it were to be a part of the BOOK therefore, does not even arise. The
author further denied that defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent herein,
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 47 of 211



has selectively picked and chosen the instances out of the context to
make them slanderous to malign the reputation of the Plaintiff.
42. The author further submitted that the plaintiff, i.e., the present
petitioner herein has not sought any relief against any information
published by third parties by the social media or internet or any other
medium which thus precluded him from claiming the reliefs sought
from the same against the respondents.
43. Inter alia, the author has challenged the invocation of the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court by the plaintiff, i.e., present
petitioner herein.
Written Statement of the Publisher.
44. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. through its
written statement dated 1.9.2017 contends that no portion of the
contents of the BOOK are defamatory in nature and thus no cause of
action arises to the plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner herein, to seek
action for defamation and that the plaint has been filed dishonestly
with an intention to get the relief by misleading the Court.
45. Substantially, the contentions of the Publisher, i.e., M/s
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd are virtually the same as those had been
put forth by the author. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt.
Ltd further submits that the BOOK is not even the first full length
BOOK about the plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner herein, and that
at present a number of full length books about the respondent No.1
which include From Moksha To Market- The Baba Ramdev
Phenomenon by Kaushik Deka, Ramdev Baba- 7 Life lessons by V J
Gartier, Ek Yogi, Ek Yoddha by Sandeep De, Gurus-Stories of lndias
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 48 of 211



Leading Baba s by Bhavdeep Kang, Yog Guru Swami Ramdev by
Ashok Raj, The Life and Times of Baba Ramdev by Ashok Raj,
Baba Ramdev and The Resurgence of the New India Movement by
K C Mahendru and Baba Ramdev Ke Sapnon Ka Bharat by K C
Mahendru.
46. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd further
submits that the even the petitioner has himself published variety of
issues – e.g . Yog; It's Philosophy and Practice and it has been
contended by the Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. that
it was in public interest that there should be as many views as possible
circulating in the marketplace of ideas, especially when the matter
relates to the figures and issues of national importance. The Publisher,
i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd further submits that the BOOK is
a biography that traces Baba Ramdev‘s journey from humble
beginnings to teaching yoga to people and his rise to fame and
widespread influence.
47. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd, i.e. the
respondent No.1, to CM(M) 556/2018 and respondent No.2 to CM(M)
557/2018 submits that it is a renowned publishing house based in New
Delhi which brings high quality books to the readers and its address
has been incorrectly reproduced in the Plaint and it is Juggernaut
th
Books Pvt. Ltd. 4 Floor, K.S. House, No. 118, Shahpur Jat, New
Delhi 110049 and that Respondent No.3 (M/s Amazon India Ltd.) and
the respondent No. 4 (M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.) to the present
petition are online stores which are well known and carry out a busy
trade in products and services and that they are third parties who are
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 49 of 211



in no way under the control or supervision of the Publisher, i.e., M/s
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd.
48. The Publisher has further submitted no portion of the BOOK
or even of the supplied passages when dealing with Shanker Dev's
disappearance is defamatory at all and states that the entire text
explains that (a) there was a disappearance, (b) the finger of suspicion
had been pointed by some persons towards the Plaintiff, i.e. the
petitioner herein, (c) there was an investigation and court hearings
regarding the matter, (d) the Plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, had
dismissed all allegations as being concocted and politically initiated
and that the CBI had investigated the entire matter and that every
statement made is substantially true.
49. Inter alia, the publisher submits that the average reader of the
BOOK through the internet is a person who would read pages 201
and 202 of the BOOK and would shut the BOOK and that reader
would have read 200 pages would have almost certainly finished
reading the next 6 pages and by cherry picking, portions, sentences
and statements, the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner, has
misrepresented the case entirely, and made it appear as if the tone of
the BOOK is purely, negative, critical or as if the defendants, i.e. the
respondents have some secret agenda.
50. Inter alia, the publisher submits that the portion pertaining to
the fact that Acharya Karamveer has had a falling out with the
Plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, and they no longer agreed on many
things and the Publisher conducted extensive interviews with
Acharya Karamveer and has direct and irrefutable statements recorded
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 50 of 211



regarding the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner herein, and even that
fact, that two people disagree, which can have no possible impact on
anybody's reputation, has been part of the public domain for years and
has been commented on by the media.
51. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd further
submits that the fifth allegedly offending portion of the BOOK
released, which is not extracted, but merely alluded to, relates to the
untimely death of Rajeev Dixit and that no statement made in the
chapter on the death of Rajeev Dixit, being Chapter 19 of the BOOK
is false, or untrue. The Publisher further submitted that the sixth
allegedly defamatory portion is the mention of the murder of Swami
Yogananda and submits that all that has been stated in the BOOK
about Swami Yogananda is that (a) Swami Yogananda was a close
associate of the Plaintiff and that they shared business ties and (b) that
Swami Yogananda was found dead murdered by knife. This
information was gleaned from (a) publically available sources listed at
Pages 214-215 of the BOOK and (b) FIR and the closure report in the
investigation by the police.
52. The publisher further submitted that that Swami Yogananda
was found dead as murdered by knife and there was no other eye
witness and the closure report was filed.
53. The Publisher reiterates that the claims of the plaintiff, i.e., the
present petitioner, have been far more explicitly, dealt with by
contemporary reports in newspapers, TV channels in India and any
other media and if there was ever any question of defamation, the
Plaintiff has acquiesced over and over again, and the plaintiff, i.e., the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 51 of 211



present petitioner, would have even rebutted allegations when
confronted and those rebuttals and comments from the Plaintiff, i.e.,
the present petitioner and his team have all been reported on and
treated fairly in the BOOK and a number of the sources for these
portions have been filed along with the written statement.
54. Inter alia , the Publisher submits that the basis of the BOOK
includes references to more than 180 press articles, more than ICQ
documents obtained from the Registrar of Companies, 28 taped
interviews and many Right to Information requests and each of the
facts that have been cited in the order of the learned Trial Court of the
ACJ-CCJ being as controversial has been the subject of press
speculation and even been debated in legislative assemblies of States
and that the BOOK merely reports these facts, in a holistic context
and that the statements made in the BOOK are about a public person,
in public interest and are clearly the Author's own opinion and are
fairly made on the basis of available information and they have in no
way been made with malice.
55. The Publisher, i.e., M/s Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd, arrayed as
respondent No.1 in CM(M) 556/2018 and respondent No.2 in CM(M)
557/2018 has submitted that the publisher and the author have
operated within the legitimate sphere of activity protected under
Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India and they have reported on
facts and offered their view points, opinions or critiques, concerning
matters that they bona fidely believe in their editorial discretion to be-
in the larger interests of the general community and that the contents
of the disputed Article which have been challenged by the plaintiff,
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 52 of 211



i.e., the present petitioner, are thus, in any event, protected by the
doctrine of fair comment.
56. The publisher further submitted that as laid down in several
landmark cases, to determine whether something is 'fair comment‘,
one must assess whether the opinion however exaggerated, obstinate
or prejudiced it might be honestly held by the person expressing it
and that any further inference drawn from facts truly set out in a news
report of article must only be a fair and reasonable inference, and it is
not necessary that they must be an inevitable inference and that the
Article targeted by the plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner, falls well
within the realm of ― fair comment‖— which is a manner of speech
and expression that is constitutionally protected under Indian law and
that such articles concerning the affairs of famous and powerful
persons are common place in Indian society, and rightly so— in many
a case have rightly helped unearth the illegalities also.
57. The publisher has further submitted that it is well settled that
the grant of injunction both, interim or permanent, as provided under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Order XXXVIII of the Specific
Relief Act cannot be used to negate the legitimate reporting by the
media/press, even if such report is pointed or harshly worded nor
should the law be allowed to choke the fair warning to the public if
the public interest stands threatened in some way.
58. Inter alia, it has been submitted on behalf of the publisher that
in a case of injunctive reliefs against allegedly, defamatory news
articles in every case seeking the relief of injunction the Plaintiff, i.e.,
the present petitioner has to cogently establish that the book or article
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 53 of 211



complained of is prima facie defamatory and that for injunctive reliefs
against allegedly, defamatory news articles in every case seeking the
relief of injunction the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner has to
cogently establish that the book or article complained of is prima facie
defamatory and the balance of convenience must also be established.
The publisher further submitted that before getting into all other
issues, the plaintiff of course bears the onus of proving that
defamatory words concerning him were at all published –for which it
is simply not sufficient for him to merely show that he has a
reputation or that he is the subject of the article or that he personally
disagrees with the contents of the article and that the article unfairly
casts him in a false light, and that it is factually not true, and that the
opinions of the author expressed therein " are not at all "warranted by
facts or otherwise protected by the doctrine of ‗ fair comments‘ .
59. The publisher further submits that in jurisdictions having robust
Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights for the media, as in
India, it is now well-established that law suits filed solely with the
intent of censoring, intimidating and silencing critics by burdening
them with the costs of legal defence, until they abandon their criticism
or opposition - which are known by the commonly-used acronym of
"SLAPP" (i.e., strategic lawsuit against public participation) –are not
be entertained by the courts of law. It, is further submitted that the suit
if pending before the ACJ-CCJ-ARC (East) had been so filed
precisely with the intent of removing legitimate commentary about
possible conflicts of interest of the Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner
from, the public domain - and hence ought not to be entertained.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 54 of 211



60. The publisher has denied that the Plaintiff, i.e., the present
petitioner, has not in any way established that the contents of the
BOOK authored by the author, i.e., the respondent Priyanka Pathak
Narain are either prima facie defamatory to the plaintiff, i.e., the
present petitioner, or that there was a specific intent on the part of the
defendants, i.e., the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, to defame the
Plaintiff, i.e., the present petitioner, by maliciously publishing
untruths about him and that the BOOK published by the publisher,
only seeks to report on certain facts about a well known public
figure— which reporting is not only within the rights of the
defendants, i.e, the respondent herein (and every citizen), but also one
of the media's, most important duties' towards the society and it has
also been submitted that the contents of Paragraph 9 of the Plaint are
false and misleading and therefore denied. It is further denied that the
contents of the BOOK are malicious and scandalous or out of context
with an ulterior motive.
61. The Publisher submits that in fact, the extract " Ramdev's first
serious falling out was with Karamveer Maharaj, his first mentor,
the man who taught him how to teach yoga ‖ has been maliciously
extracted from the BOOK by the Plaintiff without providing the
context in which these lines have been written. The publisher further
denied that the publisher has wrongly attributed any accusation to
Karamveer which he has not made, and the making of which is not in
the public domain.
th
62. It is denied that any cause of action arose on 29 July 2017 and
th
it is further denied that any cause of action arose on 30 July 2017 due
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 55 of 211



to the interview of the author in Economic Times. It is further denied
that the BOOK is causing any loss of reputation to the Plaintiff, i.e.,
the present petitioner, or that it has a bearing on Patanjali Ayurveda
Ltd. Co. The publisher further denied that the cause of action is 'a
continuing one and stated that no cause of action has been shown to
arise in the present dispute as the Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. Co. has not
even been made a party to the suit.
63. The publisher has further denied that the BOOK violates the
plaintiff‘s right and reputation and has denied that there is a strict
fundamental right to reputation and has also denied that the BOOK
makes any assertions which are not verified. The publisher further
submits that the petitioner has made contradictory and mutually
destructive pleas and that on one hand prayed for an injunction against
the selling and publishing of the BOOK as a whole whereas on the
other hand he has prayed for deletion of only certain paragraphs of the
BOOK . Inter alia the publisher has submitted that the prayer made by
the petitioner seeking that all the books in the market be called back in
as much as the books have been lawfully sold to third party
vendors/distributors/book sellers etc.
64. The petitioner through submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner both orally and through his written synopsis, seeks to
contend as under : -
(i) That the approach of the learned Trial Court in the impugned
order dated 28.04.2018 was totally contrary to the settled principles of
law that the Appellant Court would not normally interfere with the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 56 of 211



exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and would not
substitute its own discretion. The petitioner further submits that except
findings of the Appellate Court that the findings of the Trial Court
was incorrect in relation to the valuation of the suit no reason has been
recorded in the impugned order as to why the order of the Trial Court
was perverse so as to not be a possible view.
(ii) Reliance in this regard was placed on behalf of the petitioner on
the verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Wander Ltd v. Antox
India P. Ltd . 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 [Paragraph 13 & 14]
“ 13 . On a consideration of the matter, we
are afraid, the Appellate Bench fell into
error on own important propositions. The
first is a misdirection in regard to the very
scope and nature of the appeals before it
and the limitations on the powers of the
Appellate Court to substitute its own
discretion in an appeal preferred against a
discretionary order. The second pertains to
the infirmities in the ratiocinations as to the
quality of Antox's alleged user of the Trade-
Mark on which the passing-off action is
founded. We shall deal with these two
separately.
14. The appeals before the Division Bench
were against the exercise of discretion by
the Single Judge. In such appeals, the
Appellate Court will not interfere with the
exercise of discretion of the court of first
instance and substitute its own discretion
except where the discretion has been shown
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 57 of 211



to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the
court had ignored the settled principles of
law regulating grant or refusal of
interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against
exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal
on principle. Appellate Court will not
reassess the material and seek to reach a
conclusion different from the one reached by
the court below if the one reached by the
court was reasonably possible on the
material. The appellate court would
normally not be justified in interfering with
the exercise of discretion under appeal
solely on the ground that if it had considered
the matter at the trial stage it would have
come to a contrary conclusion. If the
discretion has been exercised by the Trial
Court reasonably and in a judicial manner
the fact that the appellate court would have
taken a different view may not justify
interference with the trial court's exercise of
discretion. After referring to these principles
Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore)
Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph :
... These principles are well established, but
as has been observed by Viscount Simon in
Charles Osention & Co. v. Johnston the law
as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an
order made by a judge below in the exercise
of his discretion is well established, and any
difficulty that arises is due only to the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 58 of 211



application of well settled principles in an
individual case.
The appellate judgment does not seem to
defer to this principle. ”
and the verdict of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Ktean v.
Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan (2013) 9 SCC 221 with specific reliance
to para 20 of the same to the effect: [Paragraph 20]

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 59 of 211



65. It was also contended by the petitioner that the appellate
Court had erred in its finding that the balance of convenience was not
in the favour of the Petitioner as the said finding is based solely on the
fact that there was publication prior to the order of injunction on
04.08.7.2017 and that this finding totally ignores that the publication
in question came to the knowledge of the Petitioner only on
29.07.2017 and the Petitioner had moved the Court within four
working days from the date of knowledge, clearly indicating the
urgency on the part of the Petitioner to protect his fair reputation and
privacy. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is
pertinent to point out that in response to this averment of the
Petitioner, there has been no categorical date of publication provided
by the Respondent and that this finding is perverse in as much as it is
placing a burden on the Petitioner to seek a prior restraint on a book,
despite the Petitioner not having any knowledge of the contents of the
book until the same was to enter the market, as publication of the
same took place without reference to him and without his consent.
Inter alia, the petitioner submits that the Ld. Appellate Court has
completely erred in its finding that there are no pleadings to support
the case of the Petitioner and rather submitted that it had specifically
been argued by the petitioner that in relation the claim of privacy that
the right to privacy and the right to reputation are in fact two sides of
the same coin and are both founded in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and that the common law right of privacy has an identical
content to the constitutional right. Reliance in this regard was placed
on behalf of the petitioner on the verdicts of the Hon‘ble Supreme
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 60 of 211



Court in Justice Puttuswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1, Paragraph
298 and on the verdict of Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Chandrachud J.),
Paragraph 397 — 398 and on the verdict of Hon‘ble Mr. Bobde J.,
Paragraphs 623 & 624, (Kaul J.)] and in Subramanian Swamy v.
Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, Paragraphs 35, 48,133
66. The petitioner thus submitted that the Petitioner having
pleaded his right to reputation as well as violation of his fundamental
rights under Article 21 and the finding of the Ld. Appellate Court that
the Petitioner had not impliedly pleaded the right to privacy was
erroneous and it was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
learned Appellate Court in the impugned order has erred in its finding
that there were no pleadings on the part of the Petitioner that the
allegations were false, as a bare perusal of the plaint reveals that the
petitioner has clearly averred that the allegations were false,
malicious, misleading, slanderous twisted, incorrect and defamatory.
67. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that extensive
reliance had been placed by the Learned Appellate Court on
judgments of this Hon'ble Court in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka
Gandhi (2001) SCC Online Del 1030, Tata Sons v. Greenpeace
International 2011 SCC Online Del 466, Sardar Charanjeet Singh v.
Arun Purie & Ors. 1983 (4) DRJ 86, Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab
Goswami 2017 SCC Onling 12049 to observe to the effect that in
suits of the kind filed by the petitioner, the Civil Court should grant an
injunction for publication of the alleged defamatory contents not as a
rule, but as an exception, only when the defence of the defendant
appears to be completely meritless and it has been submitted on behalf
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 61 of 211



of the petitioner that the said observations are applying the English
Common Law in Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2 (Ch) 269] as

observed by Lord Coleridge CJ, which reads to the effect : -
―that there was a particular need not to restrict the
right of free speech in libel cases by interfering before
the final determination of the matter by a jury
otherwise than in a clear case of an untrue libel,
saying: ‗But it is obvious that the subject-matter of an
action for defamation is so special as to require
exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to
interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to
prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech
is one which it is for the public interest that
individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they
should exercise without impediment, so long as no
wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is
untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the
contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in
the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until
it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear
that any right at all has been infringed; and the
importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a
strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most
cautiously and warily with the granting of interim
injunctions.
In the particular case before us, indeed, the libellous
character of the publication is beyond dispute, but the
effect of it upon the Defendant can be finally disposed
of only by a jury, and we cannot feel sure that the
defence of justification is one which, on the facts
which may be before them, the jury may find to be
wholly unfounded; nor can we tell what may be the
damages recoverable.‖
68. It was however submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
Appellate Court has not taken into account the verdicts relied upon by
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 62 of 211



the petitioner and did not consider the judgment of the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court in Justice K.S Puttuswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1
nor in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
and that the judgments have not accounted for the balancing of the
expanded rights of reputation and privacy as explained in these
aforementioned judgments, against the right of freedom of speech and
expression and must accordingly be viewed with caution.

69. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impact of
the judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 on
the restraint of defamatory publication has been explained by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Kanimozbi Karunanidhi v. Thini
P.Vardarajan (CS No. 705 of 2014, dated 16.05.2018) reported
whilst placing reliance on paragraphs 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43 thereof,
which read to the effects : -
―36. In view of the above stated position of law declared
by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the facts of the present
case need to be examined in the light of the
pronouncement of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case. I am alive to the fact
that Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case, was with reference
the nature and scope of the Right to Privacy of an
individual vis-a-vis the State. At the same time, I am of
the considered opinion that the principles laid down
therein on the scope of the Right to Privacy as well as in
attempting the balance between the Right to Privacy
and Right to Free Speech, can be safely applied to the
case on hand, in as much as, the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court was also concerned with the Right to Free
Speech, enshrined the Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, while discussing the scope of the
Right to Privacy,
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 63 of 211



37. I am also alive to the fact that the applicant as well
as the many of her immediate family members are
prominent public figures and have been holding high
public offices in the State for quite some time now. Will
that alone provide a license to others, particularly the
Press and Media, to write something defamatory (either
true or false) about them, on the ground that such
information is in the public interest. As has been
pointed out by Hon‘ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case, all matters in which
the public interested may not be in public interest. In
A.Raja and Another v. P.Srinivasan, Publisher and
Printer of Junior Vikatan, Vasan Publications Private
Limited, Chennai and Others, reported in (2009) 8 MLJ
513, a Division Bench of this Court had considered the
right of the family of a Politician/a Union Minister to
be protected from invasion by the Press and Media. In
fact the course of the said Judgment, a Division Bench
has observed as follows:
―Equally, the contention put forth by the learned senior
counsel for the respondents that they enjoy freedom of
press and hence they could publish anything and
everything cannot be countenanced. The respondents
cannot be allowed to take shelter under the Doctrine of
Freedom of Press, and the same cannot also be
extended to publishing exclusively private affairs of the
appellants calling it as connected to or concerned with
public life.‖
40. The theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or
a gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted,
after the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case. The observations of
Hon‘ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, extracted
earlier would show that the Media cannot in the guise
of public interest publish anything and everything,
which may be interesting.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 64 of 211



41. As opposed to the plea of the respondents
in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and
others v. J.Jayalitha‘s case, cited supra, that the
defence of truth is conspicuously absent in the
pleadings of the respondents in the case on hand, all
that is stated in the counter affidavit is that, the articles
are being published based on information provided by
reliable sources, including persons belonging to the
very close family of the applicant. The source of that
information has not been disclosed, therefore, the
respondents in this case have not specifically taken the
defence of truth. Of course, truth may be a defence to
action for defamation, but whether publication of all
truth about an individual particularly relating to his/her
personal life is in public interest or not is a larger
question that may arise.
42. In balancing the two rights viz. the Right to Privacy
and the Right to Freedom of Speech, the element of
public interest is always based as a touch stone. The
fact, as to whether, the former husband of the applicant
is or was the owner of an estate near the location,
where the fire accident happened recently may be of
some interest to the public, but definitely cannot be said
to be in public interest. Similarly, there are several
other articles published by the respondents, which
suggest strained relationship between her and her
brother (who also happens to be a prominent
politician), some talk of her relationship between her
and a Police Officer, some attributing certain motives in
her meeting with a Union Minister and certain cartoons
and caricatures, which refer to the detention of the
applicant etc. Of course, the veracity of those statements
made in those articles or the question as to whether they
are defamatory in nature or not will have to be decided
only after trial, but at the same time the respondents, in
my considered opinion, cannot be allowed to go on
publishing articles, which do not relate to the public life
of the applicant, as a member of the parliament or as a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 65 of 211



leader of the political party or as a daughter of the
former Chief Minister or as a sister of the former
Deputy Chief Minister.
43. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the light of
the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case, relating to the Right to
Privacy, I am constrained to conclude that though there
cannot be a blanket injunction as rightly contended by
Mr. Sathish Parasaran, at the same time, there cannot
be an order in favour of the respondents enabling them
to publish anything and everything in the guise of
public interest. I am therefore, of the opinion that the
order of injunction granted of 05.01.2014 and modified
by the order dated 25.04.2016 is to be made absolute,
subject to the following conditions.
(i) The respondents shall not publish anything
regarding the private life of the applicant, viz., her
family, her marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-
bearing and education, without the consent of the
applicant.

down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 by
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul that all matters in which the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 66 of 211



public is interested may not have an element of public interest and
breaches into privacy thus made cannot be overlooked observing to
the effect that the public does not have an interest in knowing all
information that is true and that the public has no justification for all
truthful information being made available to the public and that every
individual should have a right to be able to exercise control over his /
her common life and image as public to the writing and to control
commercial his / her identity and may be permitted to prevent from
using his image, name and other aspects of his / her personal life and
identity for commercial purposes without his /her consent.
71. It is essential to bring forth paragraphs 623, 624, 625, 626,627
and 639, 646 of the said verdict which are as follows:
“ 623. An individual has a right to protect his
reputation from being unfairly harmed and such
protection of reputation needs to exist not only
against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot
be said that a more accurate judgment about people
can be facilitated by knowing private details about
their lives – people judge us badly, they judge us in
haste, they judge out of context, they judge without
hearing the whole story and they judge with
hypocrisy. Privacy lets people protect themselves
from these troublesome judgments.
624. There is no justification for making all
truthful information available to the public. The
public does not have an interest in knowing all
information that is true. Which celebrity has had
sexual relationships with whom might be of interest
to the public but has no element of public interest
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 67 of 211



and may therefore be a breach of privacy.19 Thus,
truthful information that breaches privacy may also
require protection.
625. Every individual should have a right to be
able to exercise control over his/her own life and
image as portrayed to the world and to control
commercial use of his/her identity. This also means
that an individual may be permitted to prevent
others from using his image, name and other
aspects of his/her personal life and identity for
commercial purposes without his/her consent.20
626. Aside from the economic justifications for such
a right, it is also justified as protecting individual
autonomy and personal dignity. The right protects
an individual‘s free, personal conception of the
‗self.‘ The right of publicity implicates a person‘s
interest in autonomous self- definition, which
prevents others from interfering with the meanings
and values that the public associates with her.21
627. Prosser categorized the invasion of privacy
into four separate torts :
1) Unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of
another;
2) Appropriation of another‘s name or likeness;
3) Unreasonable publicity given to the other‘s
private life; and
4) Publicity that unreasonably places the other in a
false light before the public From the second tort,
the U.S. has adopted a right to publicity.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 68 of 211



......x…..x…..x……x…..x
….x…….x…..x……x….x
The Restrictions
639. The right to privacy as already observed is not
absolute. The right to privacy as falling in part III
of the Constitution may, depending on its variable
facts, vest in one part or the other, and would thus
be subject to the restrictions of exercise of that
particular fundamental right. National security
would thus be an obvious restriction, so would the
provisos to different fundamental rights, dependent
on where the right to privacy would arise. The
Public interest element would be another aspect.
…..x……x…..x….x.
…..x……x…..x….x
646. If the individual permits someone to enter
the house it does not mean that others can enter the
house. The only check and balance is that it should
not harm the other individual or affect his or her
rights. This applies both to the physical form and to
technology. In an era where there are wide, varied,
social and cultural norms and more so in a country
like ours which prides itself on its diversity, privacy
is one of the most important rights to be protected
both against State and non-State actors and be
recognized as a fundamental right. How it
thereafter works out in its inter-play with other
fundamental rights and when such restrictions
would become necessary would depend on the
factual matrix of each case. That it may give rise to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 69 of 211



more litigation can hardly be the reason not to
recognize this important, natural, primordial right
as a fundamental right.
72. The observations made in the R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @
Nakkheeran Gopal and others v. J.Jayalitha and another reported
in 2006 (2) LW 377 are to the effect : -
―38. Even assuming that the articles published by the
appellants amount to character assassination of the
respondents, there is no justification for granting a
blanket injunction restraining the appellants from
publishing any articles, in future. It would not be
appropriate for us to examine the articles at this stage
on the touchstone of defamation, but what we do
observe is that they are not of such a nature warranting
a restraint order especially when the appellants are
willing to face the consequences in a trial in case the
same are held to be defamatory and the plea of the
appellants of truth is yet to be analysed by the Court. 
But the very same Division Bench, in the later portion
of the judgment has observed as follows:
We agree with Mr.Jothi that the scrutiny of public
figures by media should not also reach a stage where it
amounts to harassment to the public figures and their
family members and they must be permitted to live and
lead their life in peace.‖
(emphasis supplied)
73. Specific reference was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on

the observations of the Hon‘ble Division Bench in R.Rajagopal v.
State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 632 which reads to
the effect : -
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 70 of 211



― 29. Applying the above principles, it must be
held that the petitioners have a right to publish,
what they allege to be the life
story/autobiography of Auto Shankar insofar as it
appears from the public records, even without his
consent or authorisation. But if they go beyond
that and publish his life story, they may be
invading his right to privacy and will be liable for
the consequences in accordance with law.
Similarly, the State or its officials cannot prevent
or restrain the said publication. The remedy of
the affected public officials/public figures, if any,
is after the publication, as explained
hereinabove. .‖‖

74. The observations in paras 39 & 40 of the Kanimozbi
Karunanidhi v. Thini P.Vardarajan (CS No. 705 of 2014, dated
16.05.2018) read to the effect : -
―39. After observing so a Division Bench had after
referring to R.Rajagopl v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported
in 1994 (6) SCC 632, has observed that:
―whenever the appellants therein proposed to publish
any article purely concerning personal life of the first
respondent or the second respondent or both, the
appellants shall forward their queries and/or the gist of
the proposed article, as the case may be to the fax
number furnished by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents. The first respondent or the second
respondent or both as the case may be shall respond to
the queries of the appellants in relation to their
proposed article to the fax number of the appellants. 
Therefore, a limited right to publish was granted by the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 71 of 211



Division Bench. To a specific query from the Court as
to the relevancy of the ownership of an estate by the
former husband of the applicant in the Kurangani
Forest, where the forest fire broke out recently killing
nearly 23 people, the startling response of the Senior
Counsel for the respondents, upon instructions, was
that the respondents have to sell their magazines. This,
in my considered opinion, exposes the mind of the
respondents to write anything and everything, which is
even remotely connected to the applicant, in order to
enhance their commercial interest. I am unable to
accept this as a responsible journalistic approach. An
unfortunate fire accident, which took place in the
Forest is sought to be related to somebody, who was
connected with the applicant some 30 years back, only
with a view to enhance the sale of the magazine. It is
this wild imagination that is called responsible
journalism.
40. The theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or
a gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted,
after the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case. The observations of
Hon ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, extracted
earlier would show that the Media cannot in the guise
of public interest publish anything and everything,
which may be interesting.‖
to bring forth that the theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or a
gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted, after the judgment
of the Hon‘ ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case. It is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the observations of Hon‘ble
Mr.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, extracted earlier would show that the
media cannot in the guise of public interest publish anything and
everything.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 72 of 211



75. It was further observed in para 41 of the said verdict in
Kanimozbi Karunanidhi v. Thini P.Vardarajan (CS No. 705 of 2014,
dated 16.05.2018) which reads to the effect : -

for defamation, but whether publication of all truth about an
individual particularly relating to his/her personal life is in public
interest or not is a larger question that may arise.
76. The observations in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the said verdict of
Kanimozbi Karunanidhi v. Thini P.Vardarajan (CS No. 705 of 2014,
dated 16.05.2018) read to the effect:-
―43. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the
light of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme
Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy‘s case, relating to
the Right to Privacy, I am constrained to conclude
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 73 of 211



that though there cannot be a blanket injunction as
rightly contended by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, at the
same time, there cannot be an order in favour of the
respondents enabling them to publish anything and
everything in the guise of public interest. I am
therefore, of the opinion that the order of injunction
granted of 05.01.2014 and modified by the order
dated 25.04.2016 is to be made absolute, subject to
the following conditions.
(i) The respondents shall not publish
anything regarding the private life of
the applicant, viz., her family, her
marriage, procreation, motherhood,
child-bearing and education, without
the consent of the applicant.
(ii) Whenever, the respondents propose
to publish any article relating to the
private life of the applicant, claiming
that it is in public interest, the
respondents shall forward their
queries/gist or the full article to the
applicant to her email ID (to be
furnished) and await for her response.
If any response is received within 48
hours, the response shall also be
published with the same prominence of
the article. If no response is received
within the 48 hours, the respondents
will be at liberty to go ahead and
published the article.
44. It is made clear that the above restrictions are
only with reference to any publication, which
involved some matter which is exclusively private.
It is not extended to the functions of the applicant
as a Member of the Parliament or as a Leader of
the Political Party.‖
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 74 of 211



77. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the strict
application of the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2 (Ch) 269] is
being doubted even in the United Kingdom in light of the recognition
of the right to reputation as well as privacy and thus reliance has been
th
placed on Gatley on Libel and Slander (Sweet & Maxwell, 12
Edition), Taveta Investments Limited vs. Financial Peporting
Council [2018] EWHC 1662 (Admin) and Sunderland Housing
Company Ltd v. John Baines [2006] EWHC 2359 (QB) wherein in
Section 4 thereof, the rule has been analyzed with observations in para
25.6 to the effect : -
― 25.6 Defence of justification. The general rule
has been that where the defendant contends that
the words complained of are true, and asserts that
he will plead and seek at trial to prove the defence
of justification, the court will not grant an interim
injunction, unless, exceptionally, the court is
satisfied that such a defence is one that cannot
succeed. This was the decision in Bonnard v
Perryman. Lord Coleridge explained:
―The right of free speech is one which
it is for the public interest that
individuals should possess and,
indeed, that they should exercise
without impediment, so long as no
wrongful act is done; and unless an
alleged libel is untrue, there is no
wrong committed; but, on the
contrary, often a very wholesome act
is performed in the publication and
repetition of an alleged libel. Until it
is clear that an alleged libel is untrue,
it is not clear that any right at all has
been infringed.‖
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 75 of 211



This statement of the law has been endorsed and
applied consistently since 1891. In recent times the
rigidity of the rule has been criticized as
incompatible with the proper application of ECHR
law, which requires the court to strike a balance
between competing rights, notable art.8 (respect
for private life) and art.10 (freedom of expression).
But though it has been judged that it is not enough
for a defendant in the face of a statement of the
claimant that the words are untrue merely to assert
that the words are true or to state that he intends
to justify without identifying the ambit or extent of
that defence, the Court of Appeal has
unequivocally re-asserted the absolute nature of
the rule in defamation cases which it held was
unaffected by the Human Rights Act 1998. For the
moment, therefore, the proposition that the
claimant cannot obtain an interim injunction to
restrain the publication of defamatory words in the
face of a statement from the defendant, verified as
true, that he can and will justify the alleged libel,
can be regarded as an invariable rule, unless it is
plain that the plea of justification is bound to fail.
The claimant need not state that he will justify the
particular words or allegation comprising the
alleged libel: it is sufficient for him to declare his
intention to justify the core or sting of the alleged
libel, provided, of course, that the core or sting is
a wider or more general meaning than that
conveyed by the particular matters described in
the words complained of, and is a meaning the
words are capable of bearing.‖
78. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the verdict
of Taveta Investments Limited vs. Financial Reporting Council
[2018] EWHC 1662 (Admin) the verdict of the Queen‘s Bench
Division, Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 76 of 211



London, WC2A 2LL dated 29.6.2018 of its very recent judgment
observing vide paragraphs 95 & 97 which are as under: -
―95. However, the test for the grant of injunctions
in public law cases is higher than that applied in
private law proceedings. In R (Interim Executive
Board of X) -v- Ofsted [2017] EMLR 5, Stuart-
Smith J attempted to draw together the relevant
principles from the sometimes ―incongruent‖ case
law. i) there is a significant public interest in
publication of reports by public bodies,
particularly when they are under a duty to publish
([32]; Cambridge Associates in Management -v-
Ofsted [2013] EWHC 1157 (Admin) [60]; and R
(City College Birmingham) -v- Ofsted [2009] ELR
500 [28]; ii) in such cases the grant of an
injunction requires ―pressing grounds‖: R
(Matthias Rath BV) -v- Advertising Standards
Authority [2001] EMLR 22 [30]; ―the most
compelling reasons [are required] to prohibit a
public body which is embarked on a quasi-judicial
task… from publishing its decision‖: R (Debt Free
Direct Ltd) -v- Advertising Standards Authority
[2007] EWHC 1337 (Admin) [24]; or ―exceptional
circumstances‖ R (J) -v- A [2005] EWHC 2609
(Admin) [23]; iii) where, as in Taveta‘s case, what
is sought to be restrained is allegedly defamatory
allegations, then the Court should have regard to
the fact that, in private law cases, the principle in
Bonnard -v- Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 would
usually prevent the grant of an order to restrain
publication of defamatory statements where the
respondent contends that the proposed publication
was defensible: [34]; and R -v- Advertising
Standards Authority ex parte Vernons
Organisation Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1289, 1293E-
1294B.

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 77 of 211



97. Laws J‘s express linking of the public law
approach to Bonnard -v- Perryman has led, as I
have noted above, to the threshold for injunctions
restraining publication of reports of public
authorities to be set very high indeed. The cases in
which interim injunctions are granted in private
law defamation claims are vanishingly few.
Respectfully, however, I have serious reservations
as to whether setting the bar so high is still correct
or can be justified. i) Although the principle from
Bonnard -v- Perryman has been approved,
postHuman Rights Act 1998, by the Court of
Appeal in Greene -v- Associated Newspapers
[2005] QB 972, one of the bases of doing so was
that the determination of meaning (so often the
heart of a defamation claim) was reserved to the
jury ([57]). The Court distinguished the authority
of In re S (A Child), stressing ―the distinction
between a defamation case (where the claimant's
right to a reputation has been put in issue and the
issue cannot be effectively resolved before the
trial) and a case which raises direct issues of
privacy or confidentiality‖ [79]-[81]. ii) Since the
decision in Greene, the right to trial by jury in
defamation claims has been removed (s.11
Defamation Act 2013). A key plank of the
justification for retaining the rule in Bonnard -v-
Perryman has therefore gone. In any event, when
an issue arises in public law proceedings
concerning the alleged publication of defamatory
statements, the matter has always been resolved by
a judge sitting alone and not by a jury. iii)
Application of the rule in Bonnard -v- Perryman
and (the equivalent, in public law) Vernons gives a
presumptive priority to Article 10 (freedom of
expression) right over Article 8 (including the
right to reputation). It has been held in private law
litigation that such presumptive priority is not
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 78 of 211



justifiable, being inconsistent with the
jurisprudence of the ECHR: Douglas -v- Hello!
Ltd [2001] QB 967 [133], [135] per Sedley LJ,
approved by the House of Lords in Campbell -
vMGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 [55] per Lord
Nicholls; [111] per Lord Hope; [138]-[139] per
Baroness Hale and in In re S (A Child) [17] per
Lord Steyn. The authorities identify the correct test
whenever Article 10 and Article 8 interests conflict
as that in In re S (A Child) [17] and the test to be
applied at the interim stage as that provided by
Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998 .

and also reference to the paragraph 103 of the said verdict to the
effect: -
―103. Therefore, for the reasons set out in this
judgment I refuse Taveta‘s claim for interim
relief. Given my view of the merits of the
underlying claim, I am minded to grant Taveta
permission to bring its claim for judicial review,
but as I have not heard the parties on that latter
point I will not make a final decision until the
FRC has had a chance to make any further
submissions it wishes to make on this issue after
considering the judgment. I will invite the parties
to agree an order reflecting the decisions I have
made and further case management directions.‖

to contend that the learned Mr. Justice Nicklin who wrote the
judgment himself expressed that he had reservations for the threshold
for injunctions restraining publication of reports of public authorities
being set so high in Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2 (Ch) 269] and that
the authorities, identify the correct test wherever Article 10 (freedom
of expression) is involved, the presumptive priority to the right to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 79 of 211



freedom of speech and expression is held to be not justifiable and the
test to be applied at the interim stage is by Section 12(3) of the
Human Rights Act, 1998.
79. The verdict in Sunderland Housing Company Ltd v. John
Baines [2006] EWHC 2359 (QB) of the Court Queen‘s Bench
Division whilst taking into account the Human Rights Act, 1988 and
whilst referring to Article 10 thereof of the free speech rights and
Article 8 of the same which deals with the rights of protection and
reputation and privacy and integrity of a person. It was observed vide
paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 thereof to the effect : -
―15. Mr. Price is arguing effectively that the
Article 10 free speech rights of his client trump
the claimant's Article 8 rights to the protection
of reputation and privacy and the integrity of
the personality. It is necessary to remember
that clear denials of all the defamatory
allegations have been made by Mr. Walls in his
two witness statements. There is nothing at this
stage to suggest that I should treat his evidence
as false or dishonest as to its content. Is it right
in those circumstances to refuse an injunction
merely when there has been an expression of an
intention to justify and then to permit a
defendant to go on publishing widespread
allegations which are as various and grave as
these?
16. There is no doubt that Bonnard v. Perryman
is powerful authority which has been endorsed
not only in modem times but also subsequent to
the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act .
Some weight, of course, must now be given to
Article 8 interests where they are engaged,
especially in the light of the proposition
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 80 of 211



advanced by their Lordships in Re S to the
effect that when such rights are engaged no one
Article will necessarily automatically prevail
over another. There is no doubt that Article 10
will always weigh very powerfully, but Article 8
cannot simply be put out of account altogether.
17.It seems to me at least right for a defendant
who seeks to resist an injunction against
publication of defamatory words to identify the
defamatory meaning or meanings which he
intends to justify, and also to state in a witness
statement verified by a statement of truth that
he believes in the truth of the words in that
meaning or those meanings. That, it seems to
me, must be the very minimum. Of course, there
is nothing to prevent a defendant, if he or she
wishes, from adducing evidence to show the
supposed strength of a proposed plea of
justification but that is not something which is a
necessary ingredient.
18. With respect to Davis J. it is not necessary
in order to resist an injunction to produce
―cogent evidence‖, although that phrase was
used in the course of the last hearing when
Davis J. was discussing the matter before
giving his ruling, I think with Mr. Baines.
Where there are many and various defamatory
allegations, some of which are undoubtedly
very serious, alleging criminal misconduct and
matters undoubtedly of great public interest
(which, in a sense, cuts both ways) it seems to
me that it must be right that a defendant should
be required at least to identify the extent to
which he proposes and intends to justify. It will
not do simply to put in a blanket statement of
intention or hope and leave it at that. It is, in
my judgment, too cavalier.
19. So far that has not been done. I will
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 81 of 211



therefore grant the injunction against the first
defendant, or rather continue the injunction
against the first defendant unless and until the
time comes when those basic requirements
which I have identified have been complied
with. At that stage, it is entirely open to the first
defendant and his advisers to make an
application to vary or discharge the injunction.
But that will have to be addressed on its merits
as and when the application is made.
20. Until that happens, it seems to me that there
is absolutely nothing in the scales to set against
Mr. Walls' very clear denials in his witness
statement. At this stage it is not possible for me
to say that there is a clear issue which has to be
left to trial. At the moment, it is all too vague.
That moment may come. Bonnard v. Perryman
may then prevail, but at the moment it seems to
me too early to give it that priority. ‖

80. It was thus submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
common law rule in Bonnard (supra) as laid down in Sardar
Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie &" Ors. 1983 (4) DRJ 86 with
specific reference in para 23 is to the effect : -

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 82 of 211

verdict of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka
Gandhi (2001) SCC Online Del 1030 with specific reference in
paragraph 68 wherein it has been observed to the effect that : -
―68. It is also relevant to state that the
Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal's case (supra)
was concerned with the preventive action
sought for by governmental authorities. Even
there the Supreme Court did not rule in their
favor. The observation in New York Times'
case (supra) popularly known as Pentagon's
case succinctly laid down the correct view in
this behalf i.e., that there is a heavy burden on
governmental authorities to show justification
for imposition of a prior restraint. The remedy
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 83 of 211



would thus be by way of damages and not an
order of restraint.‖

82. Reference was made inter alia on behalf of the petitioner to the
observations in Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International 2011 SCC
Online Del 466 with specific refence in paragraphs 30, 35, 36 & 37,
which are to the effect : -
― 30. The English common law precedent on
awarding interim injunctions in cases of
defamation is set out by the case of Bonnard
(supra). In Bonnard it was decided that an
interim injunction should not be awarded
unless a defence of justification by the
defendant was certain to fail at trial level. The
Court's observations, widely applied in
subsequent judgments are as follows:
"...[T]he subject-matter of an action
for defamation is so special as to
require exceptional caution in
exercising the jurisdiction to
interfere by injunction before the
trial of an action to prevent an
anticipated wrong. The right of free
speech is one which it is for the
public interest that individuals
should possess, and, indeed, that
they should exercise without
impediment, so long as no wrongful
act is done; and, unless an alleged
libel is untrue, there is no wrong
committed; but, on the contrary,
often a very wholesome act is
performed in the publication and
repetition of an alleged libel. Until it
is clear that an alleged libel is
untrue, it is not clear that any right
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 84 of 211



at all has been infringed; and the
importance of leaving free speech
unfettered is a strong reason in
cases of libel for dealing most
cautiously and warily with the
granting of interim injunctions... In
the particular case before us,
indeed, the libellous character of the
publication is beyond dispute, but
the effect of it upon the Defendant
can be finally disposed of only by a
jury, IA No.9089/2010 in CS(OS)
No.1407/2010 Page 16 and we
cannot feel sure that the defence of
justification is one which, on the
facts which may be before them, the
jury may find to be wholly
unfounded; nor can we tell what
may be the damages recoverable."

35. In Holley v. Smyth, [1998] QB 726, where the
potency of the rule (in Bonnard) was reaffirmed
the Court reiterated the principle as follows:
"I accept that the court may be left
with a residual discretion to decline
to apply the rule in Bonnard v .
Perryman in exceptional
circumstances. One exception,
recognised in that decision itself, is
the case where the court is satisfied
that the defamatory statement is
clearly untrue. In my judgment,
however, that is a discretion which
must be exercised in accordance
with established principles."
36. The Bonnard rule (against interim injunction
restraining publication) was affirmed in Martha
Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004]
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 85 of 211



EWCA Civ 1462, in the following terms, after
quoting and relying on Halsbury‟s Laws of
England, 4th Ed, vol 28, para 167:
"The Law of Prior Restraint in
Defamation Actions: the Rationale
of the Rule This survey of the
caselaw shows that in an action for
defamation a court will not impose a
prior restraint on publication unless
it is clear that no defence will
succeed at the trial. This is partly
due to the importance the court
attaches to freedom of speech. It is
partly because a judge must not
usurp the constitutional function of
the jury unless he is satisfied that
there is no case to go to a jury. The
rule is also partly founded on the
pragmatic grounds that until there
has been disclosure of documents
and cross- examination at the trial a
court cannot safely proceed on the
basis that what the defendants wish
to say is not true..."
....Because of the court's reluctance
to fetter free speech and because the
questions that arise during the
proceedings, such as whether the
meaning is defamatory, whether
justification or fair comment are
applicable and as to malice, are
generally for the jury, interlocutory
injunctions are granted less readily
in defamation proceedings than in
other matters and according to
different principles..."
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 86 of 211



37. From the above reasoning it follows that
the Court will invariably not grant an interim
injunction to restrain the publication of
defamatory material as it would be
unreasonable to fetter the freedom of speech
before the full trial takes place, where each of
the parties can argue in detail with the help of
additional evidence. Similarly in this matter, it
is incumbent IA No.9089/2010 in CS(OS)
No.1407/2010 Page 18 upon this Court to
decide whether it would be reasonable to fetter
the reasonable criticism, comment, and parody
directed at the plaintiff, which to a large extent
is protected by the Constitutional guarantee to
free speech, to all the citizens of India. This
point of view was also strengthened by a recent
challenge to the old common law rule of
Bonnard in the case of Greene v. Associated
Newspapers Limited, 2005 (1) All.ER. 30,
where it was decided that if it is a known fact
that the true validity of the defamation claims
will only be tested at trial level then it would
only be appropriate for the Court not to award
an interim injunction to the plaintiffs as it
would otherwise put an unreasonable burden
on the concept of free speech. After an
elaborate survey of the law on the issue, it was
held that:
"This survey of the caselaw shows
that in an action for defamation a
court will not impose a prior
restraint on publication unless it is
clear that no defence will succeed at
the trial. This is partly due to the
importance the court attaches to
freedom of speech. It is partly
because a judge must not usurp the
constitutional function of the jury
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 87 of 211



unless he is satisfied that there is no
case to go to a jury. The rule is also
partly founded on the pragmatic
grounds that until there has been
disclosure of documents and cross-
examination at the trial a court
cannot safely proceed on the basis
that what the defendants wish to say
is not true. And if it is or might be
true the court has no business to
stop them saying it. This is another
way of putting the point made by Sir
John Donaldson MR in Khashoggi,
to the effect that a court cannot
know whether the plaintiff has a
right to his/her reputation until the
trial process has shown where the
truth lies. And if the defence fails,
the defendants will have to pay
damages (which in an appropriate
case may includes aggravated
and/or exemplary damages as
well)".

83. Reference was also made on behalf of the petitioner on the
verdict of this Court to the observations in Dr. Shashi Tharoor v.
Arnab Goswami 2017 SCC Online 12049 with specific reference in
paragraphs 53 & 87 wherein it has been observed to the effect that : -
―53. Another general rule in England is where
the defendant contends that the words
complained of are true, and asserts that he will
plead and seek at trial to prove the defence of
justification, the court will not grant an interim
injunction, unless, exceptionally, the court is
satisfied that such a defence is one that cannot
succeed. This was the decision in Bonnard v.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 88 of 211



Perryman, (1891) 2 Ch. 269. Lord Coleridge
explained:

"The right of free speech is one which it is for the
public interest that individuals should possess
and, indeed, that they should exercise without
impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done;
and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no
wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a
very wholesome act is performed in the
publication and repetition of an alleged libel.
Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is
not clear that any right at all has been
infringed."

"It ought to only be exercised in the clearest
cases, where any jury would say that the matter
complained of was libellous and where, if the jury
did not so find, the Court would set aside the
verdict as unreasonable. The Court must also be
satisfied that in all probability the alleged libel
was untrue, and if written on a privileged
occasion that there was malice on the part of the
defendant. It followed from those three rules that
the Court could only on the rarest occasion
exercise the jurisdiction.‖

87 . This Court has also held in Khushwant
Singh v. Menaka Gandhi, MANU/DE/1012/2001
: AIR 2002 Delhi 58 that where the defendant
contends that the words complained of are true,
and asserts that he will plead and seek at trial to
prove the defence of justification, the court will
not grant an interim injunction, unless,
exceptionally, the court is satisfied that such a
defence is one that cannot succeed.

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 89 of 211



84. It is essential to advert to the conclusion in Dr. Shashi Tharoor
v. Arnab Goswami 2017 SCC Onling 12049 with specific reference
in paragraphs 96, 97, 98, 99 & 100 wherein it has been observed to
the effect that : -

― 96. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of
law and the prima facie findings, this Court is of
the opinion that in the present case the
defendants have the right to air their stories and
the same cannot be curbed, but it has to be
tempered and balanced.

97. This Court is of the view that it is important
that when criminal investigation has commenced,
media reporting should be sensitive to the
indeterminacy of the questions raised in the
proceedings. Press cannot 'convict anyone' or
insinuate that he/she is guilty or make any other
unsubstantiated claims. Press has to exercise care
and caution while reporting about matters under
investigation or pending trial.

98. This Court refrains from saying anything more
as Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for
defendants had assured this Court on 29th May,
2017 that the defendants in future would exercise
restraint as well as bring down the 'rhetoric' and
even according to Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned
senior counsel for plaintiff, subsequent to the said
statement the 'previous vitriolic attack' was
missing. The statement made by Mr. Sandeep Sethi
is accepted by this Court and defendants are held
bound by the same.

99. However, before airing any story pertaining to
the plaintiff, the defendants shall give the plaintiff
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 90 of 211



a written notice, by electronic mode, asking for his
version. If the plaintiff refuses or does not reply
within a reasonable time, he will not be compelled
to speak and the story will be aired with the
disclosure that the plaintiff has refused to speak to
the defendants.

100. This Court clarifies that all observations in
the present case are prima facie in nature and are
in the context of the disputes between the parties
hereto. None of the observations in the present
case shall be used in any criminal proceeding, if
any, filed by the State.‖
(emphasis supplied)

85. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that it is essential to
observe that in the impugned order itself the learned Trial Court had
returned a finding that the proposed defences were weak and
furthermore, the respondents had not made a categorical assertion in
their written statements that the allegations are true in as much as the
author has claimed that that 'truth is a multi layered phenomenon' and
the publisher claims that allegations are a 'legitimate surmise' and thus
it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a proper
application of the Bonnard Rule would grant the Petitioner herein the
injunction.
86. The petitioner has thus submitted that the defamatory
allegations made in the BOOK written by Ms. Priyanka Pathak
Narain and published by the publisher Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. i.e.
the respondents to the present petition specifically are to the effect
that:
a. In re Shankar Dev (Guru)
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 91 of 211




 Allegation in Chapter 16: Mystery 2: Guru‘s
Disappearance [Page 458 at 463, Vol. III] that the
Petitioner was somehow involved or complicit in the
disappearance of his guru, Shri Shankar Dev and further
the Petitioner using his influence with the Government was
able to scuttle the investigation which was not handled in a
transparent and fair manner.
 This allegation is totally unfounded in as much as the
Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun has
by order dated 13.02.2015, accepted the Closure Report
filed by the CBI, in this matter, which aspect has not even
been adverted to by Defendant No.1 [Page 565 at 568,
Vol. III] . In light of this Closure Report, there is no way
for the Respondents to prove that the allegation was true in
trial, and accordingly no defence would no succeed in this
relation.
 It is pertinent to point out that that the author has claimed
to follow the case file until 12.01.2015, and thereafter
claims that the file 'goes cold". [ Page 463, Vol. Ill] It is
respectfully submitted that this is a most incredulous claim
and is ex - facie false, considering the order accepting the
closure report was the next month i.e. 13.02.2015. This is
particularly unbelievable when compared to her general
standard of research, where she claims that she scoured the
medical records of an entire region to identify the birth
date of the Petitioner. [ Page 413, Vol. Ill]

b. In Re Yoganand (Associate)
a. Allegation in Chapter 9: Mystery: 1 The Ally's Murder
[Page 440, Vol. Ill] that the Petitioner was somehow
involved or complicit in the death of his key associate,
Swami Yogananda and that the subsequent investigation
was not conducted with due vigour.
b. It has been insinuated, that the Petitioner had something to
do with the murder of Yogananda on account of a falling
out between die Petitioner and Yogananda. It has been
further represented as if the investigating officer has filed
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 92 of 211



some variety of extra-ordinary report, by stating that the
perpetrators were unknown. [Page 441] The mischief of
the Defendant No. 1 in not clarifying that such reports are
called Un - Trace Reports' and are common place, is with
the sole intention of creating an aura of suspicion so as to
defame the Petitioner. In light of the Untrace Report which
is admitted by the Author (Respondent No. 2) it is clear
that there is no way for the Respondents to prove that the
allegation was true in trial, and accordingly no defence
would no succeed in this relation,
c. It is submitted that in order to understand the mischief
played by the Respondent's herein, it would be worthwhile
to contrast the tone and tenor of this Chapter [Page 440,
Vol. Ill] with another portion of the same book where the
author while discussing one Kitit Mehta's version of event,
clarifies that the allegations are completely contrary to the
public record . [Page 469, Vol. Ill]

c . In Re Rajeev Dixit (Mentor):
a. Allegation in Chapter 19: Mystery 3: Mentor's Sudden
Death [Page 470 at 472 - 476, Vol. Ill] That there was
some foul play in relation to the death of Shri Rajiv Dixit,
and that the Petitioner was unwilling to permit the
conducting of a post mortem, in a bid to cover up this foul
play.
b. This allegation is totally unfounded in as much as the
death certificate of Shri Rajeev Dixit clearly discloses that
he died a natural death caused by an acute myocardial
infraction (heart attack). [Page 98, Vol. I] This certificate
has never been challenged nor is there any pending
investigation in this relation, despite which such baseless
allegations have been made. In light of the Death
Certificate it is clear that there is no way for the
Respondents to prove that the allegation was true in trial,
and accordingly no defence would no succeed in this
relation.‖

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 93 of 211



87. Most of the written submissions that have been made by the
author are already incorporated in the written statement of the author
which has already been adverted to elsewhere hereinabove.
88. Through the written submissions submitted on behalf of the
author Ms. Priyanka Pathak Narain it has been submitted that the
impugned order suffers from no perversity or material infirmity, and
consequently the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and that
even if this Court may hold a view different than that of the Ld.
Appellate Court, unless the view of the Ld. Appellate Court is
perverse, no interference with the same ought to be made.
89. It is further submitted on behalf of the author that the impugned
order expressly noted the perversity and capriciousness in the order of
the Ld. Trial Court and also noted in the impugned order that the
findings in this paragraph have been given keeping in view the law
laid down in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v Arvindbhai Rambhai
Patel , (2006) 8 SCC 726 and Wander Ltd. v Antox India P. Ltd .,
1990 Supp SCC 727.) and the learned trial Court‘s order has thus
been set aside vide the impugned order on the grounds enumerated in
Wander Limited v. Antox 1990 Supp SCC 727.
90. It was further submitted on behalf of the author that insufficient
and vague pleadings do not give rise to any cause of action and an
attempt to defame as alleged by the Petitioner is not an actionable
cause of action and it was thus submitted on behalf of the author that
in a suit for defamation, it is obligatory upon a Plaintiff to specifically
identify and indicate (whether by way of reproduction in the plaint
verbatim or otherwise by giving sufficient and clear indication of the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 94 of 211



portions alleged to be defamatory) the portions that he/she alleges to
be defamatory. It was further submitted on behalf of the author that
furthermore, where a portion of publication or sentence is not
defamatory per se, it is obligatory upon the Plaintiff, in addition to
pleading the allegedly defamatory portion, to plead the innuendo or
the secondary meaning and that on a meaningful reading of the plaint
as submitted on behalf of the author it was contended that neither was
there a specific pleading to which portion of the BOOK was alleged
to be defamatory nor was the alleged defamatory innuendo pleaded
and that thus there was no cause of action whatsoever for the grant of
any injunction as claimed by the Petitioner. Inter alia it was submitted
on behalf of the author that the Court could not take into account
portions of a publication which the Plaintiff himself had not identified
in his plaint to be defamatory and by considering portions extraneous
to the plaint, the Court would be said to be stepping into the shoes of a
Plaintiff which course is totally impermissible in law and that the
alleged defamatory portions had to be affirmed by way of affidavit in
the Plaint. The author has further submitted that indicating vaguely
some portions of the BOOK as defamatory in the plaint, expanding on
the same during the different stages of arguments was a never ending
exercise and was totally impermissible.
91. It was also submitted on behalf of the author that the
requirement of identifying the alleged defamatory portions was also
founded upon principles of natural justice so that the defendant had an
opportunity to meet the case propounded and that a Plaintiff could not
be permitted to play hide and seek and disclose what it alleged to be
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 95 of 211



defamatory portions only during the course of arguments. Inter alia
the author submits that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein in various
portions of his plaint had stated that an ‗attempt‘ had been made to
defame or that an ‗attempt‘ had been made to raise a finger of
suspicion but that a mere attempt unlike criminal law, was not
actionable in civil law. It was further submitted on behalf of the
author that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein had not made any
specific allegation of falsity in the plaint and that in the absence of
categorical and clear allegations of falsity, no case of defamation or
seeking injunction could be said to have been made. The author
further referred to the factum that the plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner herein
had in his plaint misrepresented the contents of the BOOK and had
under the garb of reproducing the extract @ page 113 to 118 of CM
(M) 556/2018:
(a) Invented headings / sub-headings which do not exist in the
Book;
(b) Mischievously joined paragraphs and sentences appearing
in different portions of the book, as one seamless continuing
paragraph.

92. The author has further submitted that the petitioner as plaintiff
of the suit had also suppressed various materials available in the
public domain prior to publication of the BOOK and that the plaintiff
had neither made any reference to these prior publications nor had
adduced the same before the learned trial Court and that thus the
petitioner herein was not entitled to any interim relief.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 96 of 211



93. It was also submitted on behalf of the author that as the author
had filed her own affidavit in support of her stand and had
categorically stated more than once that nothing contained in the
BOOK was false and also pleaded justification through various
modes for different portions of the BOOK such as fair comment, fair
reporting, journalistic privilege, honest beliefs etc., no injunction
could be granted for publication of the BOOK . It was also submitted
by the author that in view of the verdict in Khushwant Singh and His
Holiness Shamar Rimpoche as laid down by this Court that once the
Author was willing to face trial and was willing to justify the
publication, even if the publication was defamatory, the injunction
could not be and ought not be granted and the only remedy for a
plaintiff would be to seek damages. It was also submitted on behalf of
the author that the rule was absolute and was based upon judicial
experience of matters relating to defamation where actions are
invariably initiated as a method to stifle freedom of speech.
94. The author further submitted that no injunction could be and
should be granted since the plaintiff had adequate remedy to seek
damages and that the Court should invariably not grant an injunction
to restrain the publication of defamatory material (assuming that such
is the case, for arguments) as it would be unreasonable to fetter the
freedom of speech before the full trial takes place.
95. The author has further submitted that the BOOK itself contains
a detailed list of sources and interviews of persons who she had
interviewed which has not been denied by the plaintiff. Inter alia the
author submitted that prior publications in print and electronic media
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 97 of 211



numerous times in past from which the author has drawn and which
have drawn from the prior publications and remained in public
domain without any objections from the plaintiff. It is further
submitted that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein is a person about
whom innumerable publications had been made and it was impossible
for any person to even attempt to collate all of them or to file them
before the Court and that the Court must also take judicial notice of
the prior publications and material available in public domain about
the Plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein especially his own authorized
biography and other books on him. It has been submitted on behalf of
the author that the petitioner i.e. the plaintiff of the suit having not
stated about alleged objectionable portions of the BOOK having been
reported previously and having been in public domain and having
suppressed the various prior publications and information available in
public domain, such suppression by itself is a ground for dismissal of
the plaint. The author further submitted that the Petitioner having
suppressed the factum of his having participated in addressing the
alleged controversies in media i.e. print and electronic wherein he had
publicly spoken of and addressed these by airing his perspective/point
of view and that many times the plaintiff referred to such
controversies to be "politically motivated" or having been made at the
behest of then ruling Government or being "wicked conspiracy" and
had addressed them in many press conferences and that the BOOK
has very candidly and fairly given the version of the Plaintiff as well.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 98 of 211



96. Inter alia it has been submitted on behalf of the author that the
factum of prior publication leads to a conclusion that at least for the
purpose of injunction that:
―( a) No further injury can be caused by the circulation of the
Book, and balance of convenience remains in the favour of the
Defendant/Author;

(b) There is delay on the part of the Plaintiff in approaching the
court which would disentitle the Plaintiff to seek injunction
before a full-fledged trial;

c) There is acquiescence in the prior publications, and also a
waiver of any right to object.‖

The author thus referred to the book wherein it is stated that it
was only in October 2012, five years after Shankar Dev's
disappearance, that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's
apex investigative agency, initiated a probe to find him and that in his
inimitable style, Ramdev welcomed the investigation on the one hand,
but also attacked the CBI and the Government, accusing them of a
politically motivated conspiracy to frame him in the case and that
given the sour relationship between Ramdev and the Union
government at that time, his allegation did have some credence .
97. It is however essential to observe that the disappearance of
Shankar Dev, the petitioner‘s mentor is depicted in the BOOK as
follows:
Mystery 2: The Guru‘s
Disappearance
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 99 of 211



Haridwar, June 2007
A year after Ramdev had a successful run in the United
Kingdom and delivered a speech at the United Nations in New
York came plans for a yoga tour of the United States. India's
foremost yoga guru was scheduled to start his tour in New York
on 30 June 2007 and wind it up in Coventry in the UK on 8
August, rumbling through New Jersey, Chicago, Glasgow and
London in between.
Animesh Goenka, then president of Heritage India, a
small charitable organization that was involved with the
planning of Ramdev's tour, had told the media that the US leg
of the tour, estimated to cost $350,000, was to be funded
exclusively through charitable donations from private
individuals and corporations. The sale of tickets to the yoga
camps, priced between $100 and $500, was expected to raise
half a million dollars. This money, Goenka had asserted, would
be funnelled into research on amla and developing a product
for which a patent could he sought.
While Ramdev prepared for his international tour,
Balkrishna was making certain critical and far-reaching
changes. On 18 May 2007, fifteen months after its formation,
Patanjali Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd dropped the word 'private' from its
name. This was a critical move if the company wanted to list
itself on the stock market. Patanjali's shareholding also
changed around this time, as would happen frequently over the
years, with several of Ramdev's key associates coming on board
as shareholders, albeit minor ones, at this point. As before, and
as with Vedic Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd, Ramdev's pliant and
trustworthy Balkrishna remained the largest shareholder by
far.
Notable among these new shareholders were Krishan
Kumar Pittie and Sarvan Poddar Pittie would eventually play a
major role in Ramdev's quest for media domination and Poddar
would buy a Scottish island, Little Cumbrae, for GBP 2.1
million in September 2009 and donate it to Patanjali Yogpeeth's
UK trust.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 100 of 211



Balkrishna also converted Vedic Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd
into a public limited company.
Kirit Mehta and his partners at Aastha were too busy
struggling to survive to notice the dramatic changes that were
taking place in Vedic Broadcasting's story. Had they been a
little more alert they would have sensed that something wasn't
quite sitting right. Ramdev was preparing to take over Aastha.
But Ramdev himself missed something brewing in his
own backyard. Amid his heady successes, and hectic travel, he
failed to see that his guru Shankar Dev was ailing, increasingly
unhappy and isolated in his own home, Kripalu Bagh Ashram.
For instance, Shankar Dev, who was the convener of the Divya
Yog Mandir Trust, was not on the boards of any of the new
companies that were set up by Ramdev.
But what Ramdev could not see, though it was in plain
sight, many in Haridwar saw. Several remember the swiftly
ageing Shankar Dev, ravaged by spinal tuberculosis, becoming
increasingly frail and forlorn. Spinal tuberculosis causes the
patient to cough blood, lose weight, get night sweats and chills,
and experience a loss of appetite, fatigue and fever, and it can
sometimes impair mobility as a result of pain in the spine and
damage to the joints.
Like in many small towns, friendships and kinship survive
long years in Kankhal Sushant Mahendru‘s family, friends of
Shankar Dev, continued looking out for him even after he
stopped coming to their house when his old friend died. 'I have
seen him several times during those months when he had TB,
He was alone and ignored in a little room in Kripalu Bagh
Ashram…. cooking for himself, washing his own clothes and
utensils. The only difference was that he took rickshaws to
commute because he could no longer cycle because of the TB.
But even that was difficult for him ….
These people [Ramdev and Balkrishna] had a Nissan
Terrano at the time, but not one person in Kankhal has any
memory of Shankar Dev sitting in any of their cars. He was
always on a cycle or in a rickshaw,' says Mahendru.
The anguish of watching Shankar Dev deteriorate is
etched on Mahendru's face. From being the master of his
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 101 of 211



ashram, Shankar Dev was reduced to a sidestepped has-been in
Kripalu Bagh.
ShankarDev is still the subject of hushed conversations in
Kankhal today. Those who remember tell of his trials and speak
of his tribulations in lowered voices — no one wants to cross
the now all-powerful Ramdev. In a small place like Kankhal,
word can get around. They are right to be worried. For
instance, when I asked about Shankar Dev's deteriorating
standard of living Balkrishna became positively belligerent and
furious at me.
Ramdev's tour began successfully in New York when a
thousand people, mostly Indian Americans already familiar
with his yoga through Aastha USA, attended his inaugural
camp at Nassau Community College — some from as far as
California.
At the Garden State Exhibit Center in Somerset, New
Jersey, there was a groundswell of fan support — 3000 people
attended. The state Senate and the General Assembly passed a
resolution that this Legislature honors Swami Ramdev for his
firm belief that good health is the birthright .of all human
beings, and extends best wishes for a successful yoga camp in
the US'.
It was when Ramdev was in Chicago that news came
from Kankhal. On 14 July 2007, Shankar Dev disappeared.
Vanished without a trace. He left that morning for his usual
walk and simply did not return.
It may have been devastating news for Ramdev. Or
maybe it was just inconvenient timing. With the Chicago
schedule drawing to a close, Ramdev had to choose: Should he
go on'to London, where the House of Commons planned to
receive and honour him, or should he send his regrets and rush
back to Kankhal to lead the search for his missing guru?
Usually once a disciple takes deeksha, or initiation into
the sacred, from his guru, he establishes a bond with him.
Ramdev had not just taken deeksha from Shankar Dev but also
accepted saffron robes from him — that is, he renounced the
world. From the moment he took the saffron robes from
Shankar Dev, that gurushishya relationship was meant to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 102 of 211



become the central fulcrum of his life. From that moment
onward, Ramdev was supposed to consider his guru as his
spiritual and temporal father and mother.
There is no way of knowing what Ramdev truly felt when
he heard of the disappearance or if he struggled with the
decision or for how long, but in the end he decided to carry on
with his tour. The day after his aides filed a missing person's
report at Kankhal pohce station, on 18 July 2007, Ramdev
attended a ceremony at the British House of Commons in his
honour.
An investigation began in India, but clues were scarce. A
cryptic note was found in Shankar Dev's room: ‗I have taken
some loan from you for this trust but I cannot repay it. Please
forgive me. I am leaving.' He was seventy-seven years old.
The note raised more questions than it answered: Exactly
how much did this old man who continued to live as simply as
before Ramdev's meteoric rise borrow that he could not repay
the sum? Why did he borrow it? When had he taken the loan?
And from whom? More importantly - why did Ramdev, sitting
atop an empire worth at least Rs 100 crore, not repay the loan
on his behalf? Why did Shankar Dev not ask him for help? Or
had he?
Even though Karamveer had left the organization,
Shankar Dev, who missed him dearly, often called him -
sometimes for financial help. ‗I used to send whatever little I
could so he could get by,' says Karamveer. Vipin Pradhan, a
former aide and Karamveer's nephew, says, 'By then, the trust
was being run by ... relatives of Ramdev who had come in from
outside and had no intention, of serving any interest other than
their own. They treated Shankar Dev badly and he was very
unhappy.''
Kararhveer says that once when he was visiting
Haridwar and staying with an old friend in Tripura Ashram,
'Shankar Dev came to meet me. They had sent two people after
him to do his CID {that is, to spy on him]. They waited at the
gates while we met. I'm not sure why... they [Ramdev and
Balkrishna] had doubts [about Shankar Dev] in their minds at
the time... who knows what doubt… what they were thinking at
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 103 of 211



the time. It must have been a very difficult situation for Shankar
Dev.'
But it is Radhika Nagrath's appraisal of the situation that
is most damning. Remember, Nagrath is the one who designed
Divya Pharmacy's website in its early days. She is still
associated with Patanjali and has an obvious soft spot for
Ramdev, whom she speaks of with affection, though she is
unhesitatingly honest. She says, 'Shankar Dev was a real saint -
a very gentle guy. He felt ousted in his own home. He did not
get any compassion because these people were in a race for
something else. It was once his home, his shelter. He used to
sign all the expense cheques for the trust at first [but] now the
authority was taken away from him and he was not happy with
the way things had shaped out. He had given these people
shelter and now they had no time for him ... they had no use for
an old man any more.'
An uneasy silence always follows questions about
Shankar Dev among Kankhal residents. People always ask,
'Can I trust you? Are you writing for him or against him?
You see, Ramdev has become too powerful. And look what-
happened to his guru ...'
After his pit stop at the House of Commons, Ramdev
continued his tour, travelling to Glasgow then back to London,
and finally ending his tour in Coventry on 8 August 2007. When
he returned to India, more than three weeks had passed since
Shankar Dev's disappearance. To outside observers it seemed
as though Ramdev was too busy chasing fame and fortune,
making them wonder: did he even care?
After his return, Ramdev summoned a press connference
in Haridwar, remembers the Jansatta reporter and Haridwar
resident Sunil Pandey. At the press conference he was saying
how Shankar Dev was like a father to him and how sad it was ...
I asked him that if he really was like a father to him, why –
didn‘t he come back?
―I was in the US, conducting camps, answered Ramdev.
‗Well, if a family member disappeared, one would come
back, isn‘t it?‘ Pandey pressed Ramdev.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 104 of 211



‗If I knew he was alive, I would have,‘ replied Ramdev.
'So you are admitting that you know that he is dead?‘
demanded Pandey.
That was the suspicion in everyone's minds.
Stunned, realizing he had misspoken, Ramdev fell silent.
‗Then his people just took over and changed the subject.
Though a lot of people were present at the press conference,'
recalls Pandey.
Little of this murky business was reported in the national
media at that time. Across the country, Ramdev's star was
ascendant.
It was only in October 2012, five years after Shankar
Dev's disappearance, that the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBl), India's apex investigative agency, initiated a probe to
find him. In his inimitable style, Ramdev welcomed the
investigation on the one hand, but also attacked the CBI and
the government, accusing them of a politically motivated
conspiracy to frame him m the case. Given the sour relationship
between Ramdev and the Union government at that time, his
allegation did have some credence.‖

98. It is further submitted on behalf of the author that every
repetitive publication may or may not give rise to a fresh cause of
action but that in the instant case, there is no case made out for grant
of injunction and the contention of the petitioner herein that every
repetition gives rise to a fresh cause of action he seeks to
mischaracterize the issue at hand inasmuch as the question involved in
the present matter is not whether in a case repetition of publication
gives rise to cause of action but whether injunction should be granted
in a scenario where there have been multiple prior publications. The
author further submitted that no further damage could be caused by
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 105 of 211



re-publication or repeating the publication so as to warrant the
injunction to restrain the freedom of speech. The author further
submits that the conclusion of the BOOK is in the nature of a
comment i.e. a fair comment which is arrived after 24 chapters of the
BOOK and that the BOOK is an extremely balanced account and
contains various portions which are laudatory of the Petitioner also. It
is essential to advert to the conclusion of the BOOK which reads to
the effect that:
―My search for the people who had worked with Ramdev, who
were presumably inspired by him, his vision and his empire,
was interesting and rewarding. Of course, I found many who
were energized and motivated by Ramdev and his story. But the
man also leaves behind a trail of a different sort .
A trail of people whose goodwill or frailties he used to
further his own enrichment and pursue his own agenda, people
who were left by the wayside after they had served their
purpose. A trail of people who either vanished into thin air, or
died mysterious deaths, or live on in utter fear of him. A trail of
decisions and political machinations driven not by the
principles he espouses but by expediency. A trail blazing into
the post-truth world where reality was mutable and the trusting
millions who believe in him could be manipulated through his
television channels. Finally, a trail of shirked responsibility.
(emphasis supplied.)
For every negative event surrounding him, he has consistently
yelled foul, always choosing to lay the blame at someone else's
door — the government‘s or his detractors', accusing them of
conspiring against him and fabricating evidence to pull him
down. On some occasions, he may have even been right, but he
has overused the argument to such an extent that it has lost its
credibility.
All Ramdev's former allies, aides, supporters and mentors
who had watched him rise but had fallen by the wayside at
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 106 of 211



some point seemed to have been waiting for a call like mine,
from anyone at all, asking them about their time with Ramdev.
They were all ready to tell their stories.
Yet for all the dubious choices he has made since his rise to
fame and fortune, no one can take away or belittle the legacy of
this farmer's son. Ramdev took yoga and Ayurveda out of the
restrictive realm of religion and made it an accessible practice
of preventive health care for millions of Indians. He reminded
them that the pursuit of spirituality has little meaning if the
body is unhealthy. Even today, despite the pressures of running
a growing business, he continues to hold yoga camps in
Haridwar. He's still on television every day, thanks to a
combination of reruns and fresh shoots.
Most important, he drew attention to India‘s own health
care heritage - Ayurveda. Leaving aside how it was all
executed, Ramdev's charisma reminded people that not every
ailment needs a modern doctor. There are other options that
are less intrusive.
Today, preventive health care is the new buzzword for the
health-care industry globally. Prevention is better than cure
may be an old adage, but India‘s beleaguered 60-billion-dollar
health-care industry, groaning and creaking under the
staggering pressure of 1.2 billion people, is recognizing the
worth of that ancient wisdom now. Ramdev has undoubtedly
played a vital role in making Ayurveda and yoga relevant and
accessible to millions of Indians.
In pursuit of that goal of offering healthy living options to
the market, his astute business instinct has also spawned India's
fastest-growing company. The sheer speed of growth of his
company and the breathtaking ambition of it as he chases
another impossible-sounding target of doubling revenues to Rs
20,000 crore in 2017-18 will always inspire entrepreneurs.
Whatever the future may bring for Patanjali, young people
without degrees and money will draw inspiration from its
dazzling ascent. The tales of how a homegrown company shook
up multinational corporations out of a stupor, forced them to
change their strategy, take notice of Ayurveda as a source of
new products will also endure.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 107 of 211



Nothing can take this legacy away from Ramdev. It is his to
keep.
While Ramdev's legacy relating to television, Ayurveda,
yoga and business is fairly clear, what is his political legacy?
Every venture he has touched in his life has been a success but
popular opinion may suggest that he failed in his political
ambition.
Ramdev strayed into politics accidentally, not by design.
After he met Rajeev Dixit, it just sort of happened: he tried to
harness his fame as a sadhu-cum yoga-teacher to propel
himself on to a larger platform and dreamt of his own political
party. But somewhere along the way Ramdev seems to have
decided against trying to become a mainstream political player
and instead use his political power — and it is undeniably clear
that he does have political power thanks to his popularity
among people — to further his business interests. Ramdev's
politics now plays a supporting role for his business empire —
and that‘s not a failure as much as a sensible, pragmatic
realignment.
But pragmatism and taking utilitarian, hard-boiled decisions
is second nature for Ramdev. It is easy to forget that Ramdev
was not always a BJP ally. Once upon a time he was the
protege of the Congress, willing to hijack the VHP-RSS agenda
to hand over a victory to allies in the Grand Old Party.
Without his old Congress allies, and their largesse – land
discounts, permissions, loan approvals – Ramdev could not
have become as powerful as he had in the first place. Yet when
he realized the Congress was a sinking ship and fell out with
his earlier godfathers, he negotiated a safe landing space with
the VHP-RSS-BJP combine.
Smoothly, courageously, he abandoned the Congress party,
becoming part of the battering ram that brought it down.
Ramdev is said to have helped the BJP with the 2014 general
election campaign and is now apparently reaping rewards for
that service. In May 2017, a Reuters article alleged that
according to (unpolished) documents examined by them,
Ramdev has received 46 million dollars in land allocations and
discounts from BJP-led state governments.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 108 of 211



But do not take this to be a permanent realignment. Ramdev
is a hardheaded ally who can blow hot and cold at will.
Today, even as he reiterates his support for the BJP
government, Ramdev is quietly mending fences with his former
allies-turned-foes, holding public and private meetings with
Lalu Prasad Yadav, Akhilesh and Mulayam Singh Yadav and
the Congress politicians. If he ever needs to abandon the BJP,
his old alliances may well be restored enough to make the
transition possible. Ramdev‘s ability to nurse new dreams,
pursue them and abandon them if needed, his fluidity, makes it
impossible to categorize his political flirtation as a complete
failure. His ability to adapt and respond to changing
landscapes is formidable - and admirable. When denied
political domination, he chose to harness politics to seek
economic dominion.
Yet, Ramdev and the empire he has built now stand at a
crossroads. However beguiling it is to believe in the fairy tale
of one man's ability to build an empire from nothing in almost
no time, his success is far from assured.
A seething rivalry between his brother and his deputy
threatens his empire. Ram Bharat and Balkrishna, who always
banded together against any third ascending power in
Ramdev's empire, do not enjoy a close relationship. One gets
the impression that for Ramdev blood is thicker than water and
so Balkrishna, given to insecurity and jealousy, has long been
envious of Ram Bharat - for instance, all those years ago, when
Karamveer was still around, Balkrishna was upset with Ramdev
for buying Ram Bharat a bike and a house.
These two men have long been Ramdev's lieutenants,
executing his orders on the ground. Ram Bharat has always
been in charge of the purse strings. Balkrishna oversees the
Ayurveda and to lesser extent the FMCG side of the empire,
under Ramdev's watchful eye.
But Balkrishna, a man who knows everything about Ramdev,
is also seen to be attention-hungry and desires a prominent
public profile, like Ramdev‘s — that‘s why he is so active on
social media, building his own brand, even making claims of
discovering the mythical sanjeevani buti, the herb described in
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 109 of 211



the Ramayana as one that can raise the dead to life. Ramdev
and Balkrishna's shared history apparently forced Ramdev's
hand to give him space on the masthead of the company and on
their advertisements.
But don't be fooled into thinking they're equals. Balkrishna
is without a doubt Ramdev s pliable and controllable deputy. It
was nothing but expediency that led Ramdev to put 94 per cent
of Patanjali in Balkrishna's name — his long-standing
subordinate could be controlled as neither Ramdev nor his
family could sit at the helm without a backlash.
It is generally speculated that Ram Bharat is not
particularly thrilled with this arrangement. Yet, because he
continues to control the finances of the company, he is
mollified. This division of real and perceived power keeps their
rivalries from spilling over. For now.
But it is hard not to feel as though this house of cards may
come crashing down.
For Ramdev, the stakes have never been higher. And there
are some questions he needs to consider. Will he find the
courage to distance his unpredictable family, particularly his
brother, from the company? Will, he be able to stand up to
people within his organization and prevent them, from pursuing
unfair trade practices with his distributors and suppliers? Can
he rein in his advertising juggernaut from misleading and mis-
selling to the public? Is he willing to own the mistakes made in
the past and correct them? Most important, is he willing to play
by the rules of the society he lives in and hold himself up to the
laws that ordinary businessmen have to adhere to? Is he ready
to stop using his saffron robes as a holy shield against public
scrutiny?‖

99. A further submission raised on behalf of the author is that for
judging a publication the standard ought to be not that of a over-
sensitive man and that furthermore the standard in relation to a public
figure where the public persona is extremely high, and higher the
persona, higher is the threshold for defamation and it is submitted by
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 110 of 211



the author that nothing contained in the BOOK is defamatory and the
BOOK is to be read as a whole and stray sentences cannot be picked
out. The author further submits that public figures like public officials
have to be subjected to searching criticism and further submits that
public has an interest, and in fact a deep interest, in knowing all sides
to the persona of, and events surrounding, a public figure and that
public figures like the Plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein seek to shape
public opinions, canvass for political parties in elections and
participate in all kinds of public debates, influence the lives of
millions, are emulated by others, and therefore all aspects of their
lives must, in a democratic society be scrutinized closely. The author
further submitted that there is a lot of value in engaging in uninhibited
debate about the actions and omissions of public figures and taking
into account the factum that public figures have access to mass media,
and the opportunity of counter criticism of their views and activities,
the public officials / public figures cannot seek to silence or restrain
the speech. The author nevertheless submits that in any event the
BOOK gives an extremely balanced account where the version of the
plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein has been duly noted and published.
The author further submits that without prejudice to her submissions
that there is nothing defamatory in the BOOK and that public figures
like the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein cannot be too thin skinned in
reference to the comments or observations or opinions or any other
matter as regards them or in respect of events surrounding them and
that the standard in law for defamation in relation to public figures is
that of a "crank" and "an enthusiast" and law rather mandates that
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 111 of 211



even if public figures know from the bottom of their hearts that
publications are undeserved, they must even submit to be
misunderstood. The author further submits that this approach has been
rightly adopted in law to give freedom of speech widest amplitude
which is the most cherished freedom in a democracy.
100. The author further submits that the verdicts of this Court in
His Holiness Shamar Rimpoche, Shashi Tharoor, Khushwant Singh
show that inferences of defamation are not to be drawn easily and that
injunctions are invariably never granted in the cases of public figures.
The author further submits that there is a vital public interest in
obtaining information about a public figure and that public interest is
the matter of freedom of speech and is to be construed liberally and
furthermore, an approach which does not chill the speech needs to be
adopted. The author further relied on the verdict in Khushwant Singh
and Indu Jain to contend that BOOK is in public interest and to judge
whether a publication is in public interest or not, each sentence or
paragraph or chapter is not to be analysed to ascertain if the same
would serve any 'public interest', and to attempt to identify what that
public interest / public goal might be and that such a microscopic
approach is totally impermissible and unwarranted in law. The entire
publication is to be read as a whole. The author further submits that in
law, a matter which is "of interest to public" is also in public interest,
and the standards for "public interest" from different arenas e.g. public
interest petitions etc are not to be imported in the matters of freedom
of speech.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 112 of 211



101. It has been submitted on behalf of the author that if the
public figure is to be construed too rigidly or if the authors are to be
held liable for every inaccuracy and that nothing contained in the
BOOK is inaccurate, the same would amount to 'chilling' of speech
which is a widely accepted constitutional principle and that in such a
situation not only false speech will be deterred but the authors will be
deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be
true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can
be proved in Court or fear of the expense of having to do so. The
author further submits that in such an event no author would even
want to then ever write or talk about anything that is controversial for
the fear of being unable to prove and that on account of this, even in
defamation actions, the law does not even require 'truth' to be
'absolute truth' but only 'substantial truth' and that in any case, the
truthfulness or falsity are to be determined only in trial.
102. The author further submitted to the effect that no consent of
the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein is at any stage required and that
there is no violation of the right to privacy inasmuch as freedom of
speech cannot be made conditional on the mercy of the subject about
whom something is sought to be written and that if consent were to be
mandatory for any writing to be made on public figures that would be
the end of freedom of speech as seldom would a public figure allow
something that does not soothe his/her ears or does not propagate
his/her agenda and further submits that unless the matters pertain to
and impinge on the right to privacy of an individual, consent for any
publication is not mandatory from the person concerned. The author
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 113 of 211



further submits that the Petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff of the suit
apart from having not claimed any right to privacy had in fact
waived/relinquished the same by his conduct for all times. The author
further submits that the Petitioner himself has his authorized
biography written by Sandeep Dev- Swami Ramdev- Ek Yogi – Ek
Yodhha in which he has given a detail of his own family life and life
in early childhood, details of his education and educational institutes
he attended, friendship with Acharya Balkrishna, and injuries of Baba
Ramdev. It is submitted by the author that it has been revealed in
detail in the said biography that he was called 'petul' in his childhood
for being fat, he belonged to a poor family, and that he was regularly
beaten up by his father or that once he was alleged to be a thief etc.
103. Inter alia the author submits that the plaintiff of the suit i.e.
the petitioner herein is not affirmed any pleadings himself on oath and
has taken no stand on affidavit himself and if any averment is found to
be false, who would the Court proceed against and it is thus submitted
by the author that the suit has not been duly instituted and has also not
been appropriately valued for the purpose of injunction. Inter alia the
author submits that though there are certain inaccuracies in the
BOOK , the inaccuracies cannot be termed to be defamatory.
104. The written submissions submitted on behalf of the publisher
i.e. Juggernaut Books Private Limited and Anrs. and submissions
made, seek to contend that the scope of revision in the present
petitions i.e. CM(M)556/18 & CM(M)557/18 is limited to the narrow
examination of whether the impugned order of the learned Appellate
Judge was absolutely perverse, arbitrary or unsustainable and the said
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 114 of 211



jurisdiction ought not to be traversed by this Court. The publisher
further submits that the learned Appellate Judge was duty bound to
overturn the injunction of the impugned order as the learned Trial
Court has completely overlooked the settled principles of law and
ignored the pleading and documents on the record.
105. The publisher further submits that there is a binding law on
injunctions inasmuch as law in Delhi follows the Bonnard principle as
laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka
Gandhi, Tata Sons Ltd. V. Greenpeace International, His Holiness
Shamar Rimpoche v. Lea Terhune, and Indu Jain v. Forbes Inc .
The publisher further submits that where a defendant in a civil suit for
defamation pleads justification, then no interim injunction can be
granted, and in the event that the said defendant were to fail in his
defence, damages would be an adequate remedy and states that the
remedy even in U.K. would be adequate damages. The publisher
further contended that both the author and the publisher have
unequivocally committed to standing by the truth of the statements
made in the BOOK and the fairness of comments and conclusions
reached, both before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court bring
forth the justification has been arrived at and submits further that none
of the allegedly defamatory statements had been made for the first
time inasmuch as there was acquiescence and no irreparable harm
could possibly be caused to the reputation of the petitioner. The
publisher contends that the petitioner has contended that his right to
privacy has been infringed but that this claim is not made in the plaint
by the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein and is thus irrelevant and that
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 115 of 211



the petitioner being a public figure, the facts of his life are already in
public domain and that he has also authorized his biographies and
given television serials about his life and he volunteered his life for
public examination. The publisher further submits that the author has
taken news articles and books placed on record by the petitioner
which pertains to the facts to which the petitioner has now taken
umbrage after knowingly not responding to the criticism for decades
and cannot now claim to be entitled to an injunction against the
defendant. Inter alia the publisher submitted that the repetition rule is
irrelevant and whether or not repetition of a libel would still be libel is
a separate question, but the fact that it has been often repeated and
acquiesced to would be sufficient to deny the petitioner an injunction.
106. The author further submits that the judgments of this Court in
Sardar Charanjit Singh v. Arun Purie l983 (4) DRJ 86, Khushwant
Singh v. Maneka Gandhi AIR 2002 Del 58 and Indu Jain v. Forbes
Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del 1424 caution Courts from granting
injunctions where public persons are the subject, because,
(a) it is in public interest that people know about their doings, even
in their personal lives, because they may affect public interest and ;

(b) they exercise disproportionate control over the media and can
issue correctives and widely publish denials and comments and it has
further been submitted on behalf of the publisher that in term of
verdict in ― Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor ‖ 1995 (32) DRJ ,
there is now no meaningful defence between public officials and
public figures and law.

107. The publisher further submits that the contention of the
petitioner that because the publisher has placed a standard disclaimer
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 116 of 211



in the BOOK , the publisher has no right to claim justification is
insufficient to bring forth that the disclaimer has never been treated as
a defence by the publisher and that the defence has been waived in the
written statement and furthermore, the publisher has already stated
that it categorically stands by the BOOK and if there is anything
defamatory in the BOOK , damages are the only remedy. The
publisher further reiterates that there is no infirmity in the impugned
order of the Appellate Court and that it proceeds on the principles in
vacating the injunction that are endorsed in “Wander Ltd. v Antox
India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727.” inasmuch as the order of the
Trial Court was bad because
i. The plaint and the application were neither specific nor
categorical of falsity;
ii. That the suit was bad for valuation;
iii. That the Trial Court did not discuss the law placed before
it;
iv. That the Trial Court did not deal with the voluminous
documents placed on the record;
v. and that the balance of convenience lay fully in favour of
the respondents i.e. the publisher and the author as
25,000/- copies of the BOOK were already in the
market.
108. It has further been submitted on behalf of the publisher that
the BOOK was not a defamatory BOOK of the petitioner and was
rather laudatory in tone and wherever it discussed the criticism of the
petitioner, it presents the defence or response of the petitioner as well.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 117 of 211



The publisher further submits that it was not defamatory to discuss the
fact that a person was criticized nor was it necessarily defamatory
when one criticized a person and that when facts were stated, those
facts were true, and where a comment was made, that comment was a
fair one.
109. The publisher further submits that as of now at the stage of
revision from appeal, the petitioner has sought to build a case on the
basis of a documents which were not formally on record before the
Trial Court or the Appellate Court and that the order of the CBI Court
was only formally filed before the Trial Court and that even if it was
assumed without conceding that it was at variance with any statement,
no conclusion of libel can be drawn from it. Inter alia the publisher
submits that the death certificate of Mr. Rajeev Dixit has been
produced for the first time before this Court in revision and in any
case does not directly contradict any fact stated in the BOOK . The
publisher further submits that the contention of the petitioner with
regard to the murder of Swami Yogananda is even less persuasive and
that the report of the police officer reported in the BOOK must
necessarily be called an untrace report is merely a difference in
nomenclature and not even a whisper of falsity is borne out and that
all these facts or documents are best tested at trial, and not at the stage
of ad-interim injunction.
110. It is essential to advert to Chapter IX of the BOOK which reads
as follows:
― A day after the Asian tsunami swept up
the shorelines of fourteen countries, killing
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 118 of 211



nearly a quarter of a million people, an
intriguing event occurred in Kankhal. In the
darkening winter evening of 27 December 2004,
a scuffle broke out in the single-storey
Yogananda Ashram, home to Swami
Yogananda, the man whose licence had enabled
Divya Pharmacy to function and grow for eight
years since its inception in 1995 till 2003.
Yogananda's neighbours are cagey about
discussing it even today but they say they heard
raised voices coming from his house that
eventful evening. No one imagined, though, that
Yogananda — the lonely man who lived without
a telephone or even electricity — was being
knifed to death. One Vasant Kumar Singh
discovered his lifeless body shortly after and
called the police. Along with other neighbours,
the young Tarun Kumar went in with the police.
‗I remember it still. He was there, in that dark
room when I went in…. lying in a pool of his
own blood.'
As mentioned earlier, in 2003 Divya
Pharmacy had abruptly changed the vaidya or
its registration from Swami Yogananda to Sri
Saty Pal Singh. Yogananda is said to have had a
felling out with Ramdev‘s increasingly powerful
enterprise but the reasons for this are still
unknown.
With Yogananda‘s death, a key associate
who had provided critical help to Ramdev in his
early days was gone. The murder remains
unsolved till date. Ten months later, on 25
October 2005, investigating officer B.B. Juyal
filed his final report in the case - Case unsolved.
Perpetrators unknown.‖

111. In rejoinder to the submissions that have been made on
behalf of the author and the publisher, on behalf of the petitioner it has
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 119 of 211



been submitted that the contentions raised by the respondents that the
excerpts as reproduced in the plaint are not present in the BOOK and
are rearranged to be produced in the Court is an erroneous submission
and that the excerpts are identical to articles either authorized by the
respondent i.e. the author which aspect has been adverted to in the
plaint which reads to the effect:-
― That some of the contents of one of the
interview of defendant no.1 regarding the
excerpts of her controversial book are being
reproduced hereunder so as to project before the
Hon'ble court, an on her part to make the
contents of the book juicy/slanderous and
controversial with a sole purpose and motive to
enhance the sale of book at the cost of the
reputation of the plaintiffs. The following are
few of the said paragraphs:-

"When Ramdev's Guru Mysteriously
Disappeared...
A year after Ramdev had a successful run in the
United Kingdom and delivered a speech at the
United Nations in New York come plans for a
yoga tour of the United States. But Ramdev
himself
Missed something brewing in his own backyard.
Amid his heady successes, and hectic travel, he
failed to see that his guru Shankar Dev was
ailing, increasingly unhappy and isolated in his
own home, Kripalu Bagh Ashram. For instance,
Shankar Dev, who was the convener of the
Divya Yog Mandir Trust, was not on the boards
of any of the new companies that were set up by
Ramdev. But what Ramdev could not see, though
it was in plain sight, many in. Haridwar saw.
Several remember the swiftly ageing Shankar
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 120 of 211



Dev, ravaged by spinal tuberculosis, becoming
increasingly frail and forlorn. It was when
Ramdev was in Chicago that news came from
Kankhal, On 14 July 2007, Shankar Dev
disappeared. Vanished without a trace. He left
that morning for his usual walk and simply did
not return. It may have been devastating news
for Ramdev. Or maybe it was just 'inconvenient
timing. With the Chicago schedule drawing to a
close, Ramdev had to choose: Should he go on
to London, where the House of Commons
planned to receive and honour him, or should he
send his regrets and rush back to Kankhal to
lead the search for his missing guru? Usually
once a disciple takes deeksha, or initiation into
the sacred, from his guru, he establishes a bond
with him. Ramdev had not just, taken deeksha
from Shankar Dev but also accepted saffron
robes from him – that is, he renounced the
world, From the moment he took the saffron
robes from Shankar Dev, that guru- shishya
relationship was meant to become the central
fulcrum of his life. From that moment onward,
Ramdev was supposed to consider his guru as
his spiritual and temporal father and mother.

The 'Cryptic Note' Left Behind in Shankar
Dev's Rooin,..
There is no way of knowing what Ramdev truly
felt when he heard of the disappearance or if he
struggled with the decision or for how long, but
in the end he decided to carry on with his tour.
The day after his aides filed a missbig person's
report at Kankhal police station, on 18 July
2007, Ramdev attended a ceremony at the
British House of Commons in his honour. An
investigation began in India, but clues were
scarce. A cryptic note was found, in. Shankar
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 121 of 211



Dev's room: 'I have taken some loan from you
for this trust but I cannot repay it. Please forgive
me. I am leaving.‘ He was seventy seven years
old. The note raised more questions than it
answered: Exactly how much did this old man
who continued to live as simply as before
Ramdev's meteoric rise borrow that he could not
repay the sum? Why did he borrow it? When had
he taken the loan? And from whom? More
importantly - why did Ramdev, sitting atop an
empire worth at least Rs. 100 crore, not repay
the loan. Why did Shankar Dev not ask him for
help? Or had he? ...When Ramdev returned to
India, more than three weeks had passed since
Shankar Dev's disappearance. He summoned a
press conference in Haridwar, remembers the
Jansatta reporter and Haridwar resident Sunil
Pandey. 'At the press conference he was saying
how Shankar Dev was like a father to him and
how sad it was…. I asked him that if he really
was like a father to him, why didn‘t he come
back?' ‗I was in the US, conducting camps,'
answered Ramdev. ‗Well, if a family member
disappeared, one would come back, isn't It?'
Pandey pressed Ramdev. If I knew he was alive,
I would have,' replied Ramdev. 'So you are
admitting that you know that he is dead?'
demanded Pandey. That was the suspicion in
everyone‘s minds. Stunned, realizing he had
misspoken, Ramdev fell silent.
A Case Still Open...
... Across the country, Ramdev's star was
ascendant. It was only in October 2012, five
years after Shankar Dev's disappearance, that
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
India's apex investigative agency, initiated a
probe to find him. In his inimitable style,
Ramdev welcomed the investigation on the one
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 122 of 211



hand, but also attacked the CBI and the
government, accusing them of a politically
motivated conspiracy to frame him in the case.
Given the sour relationship between Ramdev
and the Union government at that time, his
allegation did have some credence. Whatever
the CBI's initial motivations, it was widely
reported that it initiated a move to close the case
in December 2014 - by this time the Narendra
Modi-led government had taken charge at the
Centre –because the agency had failed to make
any headway. The special CBI magistrate in
Dehradun set the date for the next hearing as
th
12 January 2015 but this is where the public
case file goes cold. It‘s hard to ascertain what
happened thereafter.
While a right to information (RTI) request I filed
with the CBI in Delhi met with the response that
the CBI was not covered by the RTI, another
filed in Dehradun met with the response that the
CBI does not answer questions on open cases.
Ergo, the case is still open."
And also the content of the book vide Page
No.201, Content title Conclusion 25 Para No. 1
& 2 reveals the following content-
"My search for the people who had worked with
Ramdev, who were presumely inspired by him,
his vision and his empire was interesting and
rewarding of course, I found many who were
energized and motivated by Ramdev and his
story. But the man also leaves behind a trail of a
different sort.
A trail of people who goodwill or frailties he
used to further his own enrichment and purpose
his own agenda, people who were left by the
wayside after they had served their purpose. A
trail of people who either vanished into thin Air
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 123 of 211



or Died mysterious death or live an utter fear of
him ",

and thus the petitioner contends that these above stated contents make
it evident that the author had deliberately mislead the masses to gain
popularity on the strength of twisted facts.
112. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the contention
raised on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner could not seek a
restraint of further publication in view of the prior publications of
purportedly stated allegations by third parties, alleging that the
petitioner had acquiesced to the defamatory allegations could not be
contended in common law submitting to the effect that the rule of
repetition provides that if one repeats a rumour, one cannot say it is
true by simply proving that the rumour in fact is in existence, but
rather one would have to prove that the subject matter of the rumour is
true and reliance was once again placed on behalf of the petitioner on
th
― Gatley on Libel and Slander (Sweet & Maxwell, 12 Edition),
paragraph 11.18 which reads to the effect:-
“11.18 The basic rule. As a general rule, the law
does not allow a person to evade liability by attributing
a statement to some other person. If D states, ―C
murdered X‖, then a defence of truth requires D to
show that C did murder X. If, however, D states that ―A
told me that C murdered X‖or that ―there is a rumour
that C murdered X‖, D is still required to prove that C
did murder X in order to establish the defence. It does
not matter that, taken literally, the statement is true in
the sense that D can show that he or she was told the
information by A or that such a rumour does exist. In
short, ―If you repeat a rumour you cannot say it is true
by proving that the rumour in fact existed; you have to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 124 of 211



prove that the subject matter of the rumour is true‖.
The ―repetition rule‖ ―reflects a fundamental canon of
legal policy in the law of defamation…. That words
must be interpreted, and the implications they contain
justified, by reference to the underlying allegations of
fact and not merely by reliance upon some second-hand
report of assertion of them‖.
This is because ―repeating someone else‘s libelous
statement is just as bad as making the statement
directly‖, and therefore ―for the purpose of the law of
libel a hearsay statement is the same as a direct
statement‖. This would seem to accord with reality, for
if:
―A says to B that C says that D is a scoundrel, B
will think just as ill of D as if he had heard the
statement directly from C. If moreover, A is a
respectable newspaper, D‘s position will be worse in
part because there will be many more Bs, and in part
because responsible newspapers do not generally
repeat serious allegations unless they think there is
something in them so that the very fact of publication
carries a certain weight.‖

The same approach is taken where D, rather than
purporting to report what someone else has said,
simply asserts that he believes that C murdered X---
no matter how honest that belief and no matter how
accurately it states the “fact” of his state of mind,
again he must prove that C murdered X. This does
not mean that wherever D makes a statement
implicating C with wrongdoing it must be proved
that C was guilty of the wrongdoing: on its proper
interpretation, the statement may convey merely
that there are reasonable grounds to suspect C or
grounds for investigation of his conduct, and then D
succeeds on justification by proving the truth of the
words in that level of meaning rather than guilt. It
is, therefore, necessary to determine what meaning
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 125 of 211



the words can convey to the reasonable person for it
is only such a meaning that the defendant is
required to justify. Thus it would seem that a
statement that proceedings for conspiracy have been
issued against the claimant may be justified by proof
that proceedings have been issued, and the
defendant is not required to proved that the
claimant has committed the wrong alleged in them.”

and on the verdict in ― Rosalyn Jane Mark V. Associated
Newspapers (2002) EWCA Civil 772 with specific reference to Para
29 & 35 thereof which read to the effect:-
―29. Although, therefore, it is true to say, as
indeed I said in Stern -v- Piper, that the
repetition rule, where it applies, ―dictates the
meaning to be given to the words used‖ , that is
by no means to say that the meaning dictated is
an artificial one. Rather the rule accords with
reality. If A says to B that C says that D is a
scoundrel, B will think just as ill of D as if he
had heard the statement directly from C. If,
moreover, A is a respectable newspaper, D‘s
position will be worse than if B had merely
heard the statement directly from C. It will be
worse in part because there will be many more
Bs, and in part because responsible newspapers
do not generally repeat serious allegations
unless they think there is something in them so
that the very fact of publication carries a certain
weight. If, of course, in retailing C‘s statement,
A says that C is often unreliable so that B should
not suppose the statement necessarily to be true,
that would certainly mitigate the gravity of the
libel. Just as it would aggravate the libel if A
said that C‘s statements ordinarily turned out to
be true. But in either event, D‘s reputation would
be damaged and the repetition rule precludes A
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 126 of 211



from pretending the contrary (ie, justifying by
asserting that what he said was true, the only
defamer being C).

35. In short, whilst I am certainly prepared
to recognise that the approach adopted in
AlFagih may need to be taken further still -
rather than perhaps confined merely to the
reporting of statements (attributed and
unadopted) by both sides to a political dispute- I
reject entirely the argument that the repetition
rule as such needs changing. To regard
reportage as being incapable of harming a
person‘s reputation would be to introduce into
the law a fiction which the repetition rule is
designed to avoid. Furthermore, as I sought to
point out in both Stern -v- Piper and Al-Fagih,
abolishing the repetition rule would make a
nonsense of the law of qualified privilege.

113. The petitioner further contended that it is also a settled rule of
common law rule that consent must be clear and unequivocal and the
nature of publication would be relevant for ascertaining such consent
with reference made to Paragraph 19.10 & 19.11 in ― Gatley on Libel
th
and Slander (Sweet & Maxwell, 12 Edition)” with reference to
Section 3 which reads to the effect:-
―19.10. Consent. It is a defence to an action
for defamation that the claimant consented
to the publication of which he now
complains by participating in or authorizing
it. Thus, if the claimant has consented,
expressly or impliedly or by conduct, to the
publication of the words substantially as they
were used, or to the findings of a tribunal in
a specified newspaper, whatever the findings
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 127 of 211



might be, there is a good defence to the
action; but the proof of consent must be
clear and unequivocal. Carrie V Tolkien
neatly illustrates this defence. The defendant
published a potentially defamatory comment
on the claimant‘s blog. The claimant
discovered this a maximum of four hours 19
minutes later but allowed it to remain there
for 22 months. He had therefore acquiesced
in the publication of the libel from the time
of discovery and there was no evidence in the
short, initial period of any substantial
publication to others.

19.11. Limits of doctrine. Consent, as in
other areas of the law of tort, is a narrow
defence. Thus, it has been held not to apply
where the publication was not substantially
the same as that to which the claimant
consented, nor where the publication was to
a wider audience. While republication by the
claimant himself would not usually ground
an action, it has been held otherwise where
the claimant was under a duty to republish
the matter of which he complained. The
mere submission by the claimant of a matter
to public discussion neither authorizes a
defamatory response, nor even necessarily
gives rise to any qualified privilege, unless
he has been party to an attack on the
defendant which justifies a public reply. A
person who authorizes publicity for his book
does not authorize every statement made in
publicizing it, and while a person who comes
to a ―talk-show‖ to rebut rumours assents to
their repetition for that purpose, he does not
consent to telephoned repetitions from
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 128 of 211



listeners. Refusal to respond to an
accusation is not consent to its repetition.‖

114. The petitioner further submits that there is a substantial
difference in a newspaper article which is never republished and a
BOOK which is written by purportedly a Swami Ramdev Expert and
an internationally acclaimed journalist.
115. The petitioner has further submitted that in any event prior
publications were distinguishable inasmuch as the respondents did not
point out that each of these publications were prior to the acceptance
of the CBI closure report dated 13.02.2015 and were in most instances
entirely non-descript web pages and web sites and it could not be
expected that the petitioner herein is supposed to search for such
obscure web sites and conversations on social media platforms to see
whether people were defaming him. The petitioner has further
submitted that the contention of the respondents that the impugned
publication was based on numerous sources including interviews
conducted with the petitioner had not been pleaded in the written
statements of the author and the publisher that had been submitted
before the learned Trial Court and that the defence sought to be put
forth is a complete afterthought made for the first time to the Court
and is contrary to the author‘s own stand in the BOOK.
ANALYSIS
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
116. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the respondents
that it is the standard of a normal reasonable person of the public
which has to be gauged to ascertain whether the BOOK or its
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 129 of 211



portions are prima facie defamatory, it is essential to advert to the
perceptions of members of the public which have been perused by this
Court as indicated to be uploaded on the internet prior to the restraint
order of the ACJ-cum-CCJ-AR, KKD, Delhi dated 04.08.2017, e.g. an
article dated 07.12.2017 by one Mr. Sanjeev Kotnala who after
reading the BOOK gives a review on the BOOK stating that he
purchased the BOOK before it was banned which reads to the
effect……
―there is hardly a place where the author pushes her
point of view or tries to bias the reader. Nevertheless,
there seems to be a skew in this reporting. And that is
what makes Baba wanting to prevent you from
reading it. …………. As a reader, it makes you
question circumstantial evidence and murky
happenings. Ramdev‘s life story is dotted by a
mysterious murder, an odd disappearance, and a
death under curious circumstances . He seems to have
associated with people for his benefit and serving his
ambitions. Once they have fulfilled the need and are no
longer required, he has been quick enough to
dissociate. The book makes him a power hunger
political ambitious person lurking behind a legitimate
or otherwise Ayurveda business. Good enough a
description for a villain .‖
(emphasis supplied )

117. A BOOK review dated 05.10.2017 of the BOOK by one
Mr. Amit Dass inter alia states to the effect that the suspicious death
of Swami Yogananda/Rajeev Dixit, to the less talked about
marginalization of Shankar Dev. The review dated 13.08.2017 of the
BOOK of one Mr. Ankit Agarwal concludes as follows:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 130 of 211



“ The book reveals a number of unsavory facets of
his business that fill one with revulsion and
disgust . To put it in short, I am never buying a
Patanjali product ever again. Thankfully, have
ever used only his toothpaste and honey so far so
no great harm done.‖
(emphasis supplied )

118. A review dated 27.08.2017 uploaded despite the Court
injunction dated 04.08.2017 states:-
….― At this point of time in the contemporary
history of our country, the book (and the
controversy of censorship around it) is very
relevant. Only time will tell if it‘s too late for this
juggernaut (hah) to be made accountable for
their wrongdoings and rhetoric which is being
used to fool gullible people falling prey to
substandard and harmful products peddled in the
name of nationalism‖

119. The article uploaded on the internet dated 18.08.2017 with
reference to the Court order banning the publication of BOOK of the
publisher states:-
“ This is an interesting read in the manner of a
long form journalistic piece. It is not the
definitive Ramdev biography that lays bare his
motivations, and the workings of his sharp mind.
But it does give us a clearer view of one of
India‘s most successful yoga gurus. As the
injunction shows, the baba is unhappy about
that .‖
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 131 of 211



PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993

120. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 2 (d)
thereof defines human rights which reads to the effect:-
“ 2. Definitions (1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires-
(a) xxxx;
(b) xxxx;
(c) xxxx;
(d) ―human rights‖ means the rights relating to
life, liberty, equality and dignity of the
individual guaranteed by the Constitution or
embodied in the International Covenants and
enforceable by courts in India.‖

121. In terms of the verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 and the verdict
of this Court in Neelam Katara Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2003)
ILR 2 Delhi 377, till the time there is a legislation made, the
international covenants ratified by India though not yet legislated in
the absence of any domestic legislation to the contrary, would be
enforceable by the Courts in India.
122. Thus, the right to reputation in terms of the Human Rights
Act, 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
and Article 10 falls within the rights and fundamental freedoms set
forth in the schedule in terms of Section 1 (3) of the said enactment
enacted on 09.11.1998 which is adverted to hereinbelow which vide
clause 2 of Article 10 circumscribes the exercise of the freedom of
expression since it carries with its duties and responsibilities subject to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 132 of 211



such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as prescribed by
law and are necessary in a democratic society inter alia for the
protection of the reputation or rights of others and there being no
domestic law in violation of the terms of the said International
Covenant, the said International Covenant in terms of the verdict of
the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Vishakha‘s case (supra) as laid down by
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and in Neelam Yadav‘s case (supra) and
as laid down in the verdict in Justice Puttuswamy v. Union of India
(supra) as explained by the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in Ms.
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs Thiru. P. Varadarajan (supra) , the right
to reputation falls within the expanded right of privacy, violation of
which right of privacy as contended by the petitioner is to be in
violation of his fundamental rights.
123. Articles 8 & 10 of the Schedule-I of Part-I of the Human Rights
Act, 1998 framed in terms of the European Convention on Human
Rights read to the effect :
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security,
public safety or the economic well-being of the country,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 133 of 211



……
……
….
Article 10

Freedom of expression

1.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from
requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises.
2.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder
or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
impartiality of the judiciary.
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 227
AND SECTION 115 OF THE CPC

124. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the respondents
to the effect that this Court ought not to go into the merits or demerits
of the contentions raised by the parties in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India under which the petitions have been filed or read
with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inasmuch as
this Court ought not to impose its own view on consideration of the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 134 of 211



record merely because another view may be taken, it is essential to
observe that both in terms of Section 115 (1) (b) and Section 115 Sub-
clause (1)(c) this Court may make such order as it thinks fit where it
appears to this Court that the Court subordinate to it appears to have
failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of
its jurisdiction illegally or qua material irregularity, or in terms of
Article 227 of the Constitution which confers inter alia judicial
superintendence over the subordinate Courts apart from
administrative, though undoubtedly the jurisdiction vested under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure ought to be exercised sparingly and only in
an appropriate case, the aspect of consideration of the same cannot be
obliviated and has necessarily to be assessed and ascertained by this
Court on consideration in exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with
law. It is thus on this threshold of the impugned order being in
accordance with law or otherwise and being in exercise or otherwise
of jurisdiction vested in the Court which ought to be exercised when
such jurisdiction exists and circumstances so warrant, that the
contentions raised on behalf of either side, shall be considered herein.

BALANCING OF THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION WITH
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

125. The contention of the respondents has been that freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India is supreme and cannot in any manner be qualified by the
contentions raised in civil disputes contending that the right to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 135 of 211



freedom of speech and expression be regulated in a manner that it
does not circumscribe or a impinge on another‘s right to reputation.
The said contention clearly cannot be accepted. This is so in as much
as ruled in Charu Khurana v. Union of India : AIR (2015) 839,
dignity is a quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly
cherished value as observed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Subramniam Swamy v. Union of India : 2016 7 SCC 227 laying
down further vide paragraph 133 thereof, thus perceived the right to
honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents of the right
to life under Article 21. The verdict in Subramniam Swamy (supra)
categorically observes that to state that the right to reputation can be
impinged and remains unprotected inter se private disputes pertaining
to reputation would not be correct and also lays down vide paragraph
144 of the said verdict that ― reputation‖ of one cannot be allowed to
be crucified at the altar of the other‘s right of free speech and that the
balance between the two rights needs to be struck and that the
reputation being an inherent component of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, it should not be allowed to be sullied only
because another individual can have its freedom. Undoubtedly, when
there is an abridgement and the reasonable restrictions imposed so that
both right exists, such an abridgement or restriction has only to be to
the extent what is absolutely necessary.
126. The observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in paragraphs
133 to 144 of the verdict of the Subramaniam Swamy (supra) are to
the effect:
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 136 of 211



― 133. In Charu Khurana and others v. Union of
India and others 124, it has been ruled that
dignity is the quintessential quality of a
personality, for it is a highly cherished value.
Thus perceived, right to honour, dignity and
reputation are the basic constituents of right
under Article 21. Submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that reputation as
an aspect of Article 21 is always available
against the high handed action of the State. To
state that such right can be impinged and
remains unprotected inter se private disputes
pertaining to reputation would not be correct.
Neither this right be overridden and blotched
notwithstanding malice, vile and venal attack
to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another
by stating that curbs and puts unreasonable
restriction on the freedom of speech and
expression. There is no gainsaying that
individual rights form the fundamental fulcrum
of collective harmony and interest of a society.
There can be no denial of the fact that the right
to freedom of speech and expression is
absolutely sacrosanct. Simultaneously, right to
life as is understood in the expansive horizon of
Article 21 has its own significance. We cannot
forget the rhetoric utterance of Patrick Henry:-
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, give me
liberty, or give me death!"
134. In this context, we also think it apt to
quote a passage from Edmund Burke:-
"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact
proportion to their disposition to put moral
chains upon their own appetites; in proportion
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 137 of 211



as their love to justice is above their rapacity;
in proportion as their soundness and sobriety
of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more
disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and
good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
upon will and appetite be placed somewhere
and the less of it there is within, the more there
must be without. It is ordained in the eternal
constitution of things that men of intemperate
minds cannot be free. Their passions forge
their fetters126."
135. The thoughts of the aforesaid two thinkers,
as we understand, are not contrary to each
other. They relate to different situations and
conceptually two different ideas; one speaks of
an attitude of compromising liberty by
accepting chains and slavery to save life and
remain in peace than to death, and the other
view relates to "qualified civil liberty" and
needed control for existence of the Patrick
Henry, Speech in House of Burgesses on
23.3.1775 (Virginia) 126 Alfred Howard, The
Beauties of Burke (T. Davison, London) 109
140 society. Contexts are not different and
reflect one idea. Rhetorics may have its own
place when there is disproportionate restriction
but acceptable restraint subserves the social
interest. In the case at hand, it is to be seen
whether right to freedom and speech and
expression can be allowed so much room that
even reputation of an individual which is a
constituent of Article 21 would have no entry
into that area. To put differently, in the name
of freedom of speech and expression, should
one be allowed to mar the other‘s reputation
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 138 of 211



as is understood within the ambit of
defamation as defined in criminal law .
136. To appreciate what we have posed
hereinabove, it is necessary to dwell upon
balancing the fundamental rights. It has been
argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the right conferred under
Article 19(1)(a) has to be kept at a different
pedestal than the individual reputation which
has been recognized as an aspect of Article 21
of the Constitution. In fact the submission is
that right to freedom of speech and expression
which includes freedom of press should be
given higher status and the individual‘s right
to have his/her reputation should yield to the
said right . In this regard a passage from Sakal
Papers (P) Ltd. (supra) has been commended
us. It says:-
"......Freedom of speech can be restricted only
in the interests of the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign State, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to
an offence. It cannot, like the freedom to carry
on business, be curtailed in the interest of the
general public. If a law directly affecting it is
challenged, it is no answer that the
restrictions enacted by it are justifiable under
clauses (3) to (6). For, the scheme of Article
19 is to enumerate different freedoms
separately and then to specify the extent of
restrictions to which they may be subjected
and the objects for securing which this could
be done. A citizen is entitled to enjoy each and
every one of the freedoms together and clause
(1) does not prefer one freedom to another.
That is the plain meaning of this clause. It
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 139 of 211



follows from this that the State cannot make a
law which directly restricts one freedom even
for securing the better enjoyment of another
freedom ."
137. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration on the said passage, we are
disposed to think that the above passage is of
no assistance to the petitioners, for the issue
herein is sustenance and balancing of the
separate rights, one under Article 19(1)(a)
and the other, under Article 21. Hence, the
concept of equipose and counterweighing
fundamental rights of one with other person.
not a case of mere better enjoyment of
another freedom . In Acharya Maharajshri
Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj
and others v. The State of Gujarat and
others127, it has been observed that a
particular fundamental right cannot exist in
isolation in a watertight compartment. One
fundamental right of a person may have to co-
exist in harmony with the exercise of another
fundamental right by others and also with
reasonable and valid exercise of power by the
State in the light of the Directive Principles in
the interests of social welfare as a whole. The
Court‘s duty is to strike a balance between
competing claims of different interests. In
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress and others128 the Court
has ruled that Articles relating to fundamental
rights are all parts of an integrated scheme in
the Constitution and their waters must mix to
constitute that grand flow of unimpeded and
impartial justice; social, economic and
political, and of equality of status and
opportunity which imply absence of
unreasonable or unfair discrimination between
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 140 of 211



individuals or groups or classes. In St.
Stephen‘s College v. University of Delhi129
this Court while emphasizing the need for
balancing the fundamental rights observed
that:
96…. it is necessary to mediate between Article
29(2) and Article 30(1), between letter and
spirit of these articles, between traditions of the
past and the convenience of the present,
between society‘s need for stability and its need
for change."
138. In Mr ‗X‘ v. Hospital ‗Z‘130 this Court
stated that,
"44…..where there is a clash of two
Fundamental Rights, the right to privacy as
part of right to life and Ms ‗Y‘s right to lead a
healthy life which is her Fundamental Right
under Article 21, the right which would
advance the public morality or public interest,
would alone be enforced through the process of
court, for the reason that moral considerations
cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are not
expected to sit as mute structures of clay in the
hall known as the courtroom, but have to be
sensitive, "in the sense that they must keep their
fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted
morality of the day".
That apart, we would also add that there has to
be emphasis on advancement of public or
social interest.
139. In Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty
Association and others131 while emphasizing
the need to balance the fundamental rights, this
Court held that:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 141 of 211



"... It is to be appreciated that Article 15(4) is
an enabling provision like Article 16(4) and the
reservation under either provision should not
exceed legitimate limits. In making
reservations for the backward classes, the State
cannot ignore the fundamental rights of the rest
of the citizens. The special provision under
Article 15(4) [sic 16(4)] must therefore strike a
balance between several relevant
considerations and proceed objectively".
140. In Ram Jethmalani and others v. Union of
India and others132 it has been held that the
rights of citizens, to effectively seek the
protection of fundamental rights have to be
balanced against the rights of citizens and
persons under Article 21. The latter cannot be
sacrificed on the anvil of fervid desire to find
instantaneous solutions to systemic problems
through defamation speech, for it would lead
to dangerous circumstances and anarchy may
become the order of the day.
141. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation
Ltd. (supra) while describing the role of this
Court in balancing the fundamental rights, the
Constitution Bench observed that the Supreme
Court is not only the sentinel of the
fundamental rights but also a balancing wheel
between the rights, subject to social control.
The larger Bench further observed that:-
"Freedom of expression is not an absolute
value under our Constitution. It must not be
forgotten that no single value, no matter
exalted, can bear the full burden of upholding
a democratic system of government.
Underlying our constitutional system are a
number of important values, all of which help
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 142 of 211



to guarantee our liberties, but in ways which
sometimes conflict. Under our Constitution,
probably, no values are absolute. All
important values, therefore, must be qualified
and balanced against other important, and
often competing, values. This process of
definition, qualification and balancing is as
much required with respect to the value of
freedom of expression as it is for other
values".
142. In Maneka Gandhi (supra), it has been
held:-
"5. ... It is indeed difficult to see on what
principle we can refuse to give its plain natural
meaning to the expression ‗personal liberty‘ as
used in Article 21 and read it in a narrow and
restricted sense so as to exclude those
attributes of personal liberty which are
specifically dealt with in Article 19. We do not
think that this would be a correct way of
interpreting the provisions of the Constitution
conferring fundamental rights. The attempt of
the Court should be to expand the reach and
ambit of the fundamental rights rather than
attenuate their meaning and content by a
process of judicial construction. The
wavelength for comprehending the scope and
ambit of the fundamental rights has been set by
this Court in R.C. Cooper case (supra) and our
approach in the interpretation of the
fundamental rights must now be in tune with
this wavelength. We may point out even at the
cost of repetition that this Court has said in so
many terms in R.C. Cooper case (supra) that
each freedom has different dimensions and
there may be overlapping between different
fundamental rights and therefore it is not a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 143 of 211



valid argument to say that the expression
‗personal liberty‘ in Article 21 must be so
interpreted as to avoid overlapping between
that article and Article 19(1)."
Krishna Iyer, J., in his concurring opinion, has
observed thus:-
"96. ....... the law is now settled, as I apprehend
it, that no article in Part III is an island but
part of a continent, and the conspectus of the
whole part gives the direction and correction
needed for interpretation of these basic
provisions. Man is not dissectible into separate
limbs and, likewise, cardinal rights in an
organic constitution, which make man human
have a synthesis. The proposition is
indubitable that Article 21 does not, in a given
situation, exclude Article 19 if both rights are
breached .
97. We may switch to Article 19 very briefly
and travel along another street for a while. Is
freedom of extra-territorial travel to assure
which is the primary office of an Indian
passport, a facet of the freedom of speech and
expression, of profession or vocation under
Article 19? My total consensus with Shri
Justice Bhagwati jettisons from this judgment
the profusion of precedents and the mosaic of
many points and confines me to some
fundamentals confusion on which, with all the
clarity on details, may mar the conclusion. It is
a salutary thought that the summit Court
should not interpret constitutional rights
enshrined in Part III to choke its life-breath or
chill its ilan vital by processes of legalism,
overruling the enduring values burning in the
bosoms of those who won our independence
and drew up our founding document. We must
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 144 of 211



also remember that when this Court lays down
the law, not ad hoc tunes but essential notes,
not temporary tumult but transcendental truth,
must guide the judicial process in translating
into authoritative notation and mood music of
the Constitution."
Beg, J. has stated that:-
"Articles dealing with different fundamental
rights contained in Part III of the Constitution
do not represent entirely separate streams of
rights which do not mingle at many points.
They are all parts of an integrated scheme in
the Constitution. Their waters must mix to
constitute that grand flow of unimpeded and
impartial Justice (social, economic and
political), ....."
143. In Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar,
Supreme Court of India and others133,
wherein the majority in the Constitution Bench
has observed that the fundamental right to life
among all fundamental rights is the most
precious to all human beings.
144. The aforementioned authorities clearly
state that balancing of fundamental rights is a
constitutional necessity. It is the duty of the
Court to strike a balance so that the values are
sustained. The submission is that continuance
of criminal defamation under Section 499
IPC is constitutionally inconceivable as it
creates a serious dent in the right to freedom
of speech and expression. It is urged that to
have defamation as a component of criminal
law is an anathema to the idea of free speech
which is recognized under the Constitution
and, therefore, criminalization of defamation
in any form is an unreasonable restriction.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 145 of 211



We have already held that reputation is an
inextricable aspect of right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution and the State in
order to sustain and protect the said
reputation of an individual has kept the
provision under Section 499 IPC alive as a
part of law. The seminal point is permissibility
of criminal defamation as a reasonable
restriction as understood under Article 19(2)
of the Constitution. To elucidate, the
submission is that criminal defamation, a pre-
Constitution law is totally alien to the concept
of free speech. As stated earlier, the right to
reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the
Constitution. It is an individual‘s
fundamental right and, therefore, balancing
of fundamental right is imperative. The Court
has spoken about synthesis and overlapping of
fundamental rights, and thus, sometimes
conflicts between two rights and competing
values. In the name of freedom of speech and
expression, the right of another cannot be
jeopardized. In this regard, 148 reproduction
of a passage from Noise Pollution (V), In re
137 would be apposite. It reads as follows:-
"... Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and
right to expression are fundamental rights but
the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a
fundamental right to create noise by amplifying
the sound of his speech with the help of
loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech,
others have a right to listen or decline to listen.
Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody
can claim that he has a right to make his voice
trespass into the ears or mind of others.
Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If
anyone increases his volume of speech and that
too with the assistance of artificial devices so
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 146 of 211



as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to
hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious
levels, then the person speaking is violating the
right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and
pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21.
Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service
for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed
by Article 21. We need not further dwell on this
aspect. Two decisions in this regard delivered
by the High Courts have been brought to our
notice wherein the right to live in an
atmosphere free from noise pollution has been
upheld as the one guaranteed by Article 21 of
the Constitution. These decisions are Free
Legal Aid Cell Shri Sugan Chand Aggarwal v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi135 and P.A. Jacob v.
Supdt. of Police136. We have carefully gone
through the reasoning adopted in the two
decisions and the principle of law laid down
therein, in particular, the exposition of Article
21 of the Constitution. We find ourselves in
entire agreement therewith."
We are in respectful agreement with the
aforesaid enunciation of law. Reputation
being an inherent component of Article 21, we
do not think it should be allowed to be sullied
solely because another individual can have its
freedom. It is not a restriction that has an
inevitable consequence which impairs
circulation of thought and ideas. In fact, it is
control regard being had to another person‘s
right to go to Court and state that he has been
wronged and abused. He can take recourse to
a procedure recognized and accepted in law to
retrieve and redeem his reputation. 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
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 147 of 211



other‘s right of free speech. The legislature in
its wisdom has not thought it appropriate to
abolish criminality of defamation in the
obtaining social climate.‖
127. While speaking about reputation, William Hazlitt had to say:-
"A man‘s reputation is not in his own keeping, but lies
at the mercy of the profligacy of others. Calumny
requires no proof. The throwing out of malicious
imputations against any character leaves a stain,
which no after-refutation can wipe out. To create an
unfavourable impression, it is not necessary that
certain things should be true, but that they have been
said. The imagination is of so delicate a texture that
even words wound it.",
which has been also so produced in Subramaniam Swamy (Supra) .
128. The International Covenants have already been adverted to
elsewhere herein above and the International Covenants have stressed
on the significance of reputation and honour in a person‘s life as
observed also in this verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Subramaniam Swamy (Supra) to the effect:-
―31. Various International Covenants have
stressed on the significance of reputation and
honour in a person‘s life. The Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 has
explicit 60 provisions for both, the right to free
speech and right to reputation. Article 12 of the
said Declaration provides that:-
"12.No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon
his honour and reputation. Everyone
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 148 of 211



has the right to the protection of the
law against such interference or
attacks."
32. The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (CICCPR) contains similar
provisions. Article 19 of the Covenant
expressly subjects the right of expression to the
rights and reputation of others. It reads thus:-
"19 (1) Everyone shall have the right to hold
opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either
orally, in writing or imprint, in the form of art,
or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in
paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. It may
therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but
these shall only be such as are provided by law
and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or
reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national
security or of public order (order
public), or of public health or morals".
33. Articles 8 and 10 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 61
provide:-
"Article 8. Right to respect for private and
family life
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 149 of 211



1. Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except
such as is in accordance with the law and is
necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or
the economic wellbeing of the country for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others"
"Article 10. Freedom of expression.—(1)
Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression. This right shall include freedom to
hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by
public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from
requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it
carries with it duties and responsibilities,
maybe subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by
law and are necessary in a democratic society,
in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, for the protection of the reputation
or rights of others, for preventing the
disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority
and impartiality of the judiciary."
32. The reference to international covenants
has a definitive purpose. They reflect the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 150 of 211



purpose and concern and recognize reputation
as an inseparable right of an individual. They
juxtapose the right to freedom of speech and
expression and the right of reputation thereby
accepting restrictions, albeit as per law and
necessity. That apart, they explicate 62 that the
individual honour and reputation is of great
value to human existence being attached to
dignity and all constitute an inalienable part of
a complete human being. To put it differently,
sans these values, no person or individual can
conceive the idea of a real person, for absence
of these aspects in life makes a person a non-
person and an individual to be an entity only in
existence perceived without individuality.
129. As laid down in Vishakhas‘s case by the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court as reproduced in Charu Khurana (supra) :
― where the Court has framed guidelines to protect
the rights of individuals at their work place. It
ultimately resulted in passing of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which
empowered individuals to protect their fundamental
right to dignity against other citizens. Similarly,
legislations like the Child Labour (Prohibition &
Regulation) Act, 1986, 71 (1997) 6 SCC 241 105
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955, Press Council Act, 1978, the
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules,
2000 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
regulate the fundamental rights of citizens vis-a-vis
other citizens.‖
130. The observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in
Subramaniam Swamy (Supra), in relation to the perception of
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 151 of 211



reputation as perceived in the Courts in the United Kingdom, the
Courts in South Africa and as laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court of India, are reproduced as under:
― 35. Now, we shall closely cover the judicial
perception of the word "reputation" and for the
said purpose, we shall first refer to the view
expressed by other Courts and thereafter
return home for the necessary survey.
36. Lord Denning explained the distinction
between character and reputation in Plato
Films Ltd. v. Spiedel15 in a succinct manner.
We quote:-
"A man‘s "character," it is sometimes said, is
what he in fact is, whereas his "reputation" is
what other people think he is. If this be the
sense in which you are using the words, then a
libel action is concerned only with a man‘s
reputation, that is, with what people think of
him: and it is for damage to his reputation, that
is, to his esteem in the eyes of others, that he
can sue, and not for damage to his own
personality or disposition. That is why Cave J.
spoke of "reputation" rather than "character."
The truth is that the word "character" is often
used, and quite properly used, in the same
sense as the word "reputation." Thus, when I
say of a man that "He has always "borne a
good character," I mean that he has always
been thought well of by others: and when I
want to know what his "character" is, I write,
not to him, but to others who know something
about him. In short, his "character" is the
esteem in which he is held by others who know
him and are in a position to judge his worth. A
man can sue for damage to his character in this
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 152 of 211



sense, even though he is little known to the
outside world. If it were said of Robinson
Crusoe that he murdered Man Friday, he
would have a cause of action, even though no
one had ever heard of him before. But a man‘s
"character," so understood, may become
known to others beyond his immediate circle.
In so far as the estimate spreads outwards
from those who know him and circulates
among people generally in an increasing
range, it becomes his "reputation," which is
entitled to the protection of the law just as
much as his character. But here I speak only
of a reputation which is built upon the
estimate of those who know him. No other
reputation is of any worth. The law can take
no notice of a reputation which has no
foundation except the gossip and rumour of
busybodies who do not know the man. Test it
this way. Suppose an honourable man becomes
the victim of groundless rumour. He should be
entitled to damages without having this
wounding gossip dragged up against him. He
can call people who know him to give evidence
of his good character. On the other hand,
suppose a "notorious rogue" manages to
conceal his dishonesty from the world at large.
He should not be entitled to damages on the
basis that he is a man of unblemished
reputation. There must, ones would think, be
people who know him and can come and speak
to his bad character."
37. In regard to the importance of protecting
an individual‘s reputation Lord Nicholls of
Birkenhead observed in Reynolds v. Times
Newspapers Ltd16:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 153 of 211



‗Reputation is an integral and important part
of the dignity of the individual. It also forms
the basis of many decisions in a democratic
society which are fundamental to its well-
being: whom to employ or work for, whom to
promote, whom to do business with or to vote
for. Once besmirched by an unfounded
allegation in a national newspaper, a
reputation can be damaged forever, especially
if there is no opportunity to vindicate one‘s
reputation. When this happens, society as well
as the individual is the loser. For it should not
be supposed that protection of reputation is a
matter of importance only to the affected
individual and his family. Protection of
reputation is conducive to the public good. It is
in the public interest that the reputation of
public figures should not be debased falsely. In
the political field, in order to make an informed
choice, the electorate needs to be able to
identify the good as well as the bad.
Consistently with these considerations, human
rights conventions recognise that freedom of
expression is not an absolute right. Its exercise
may be subject to such restrictions as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society for the protection of the
reputations of others."
38. While deliberating on possible balance
between the right to reputation and freedom of
expression, in Campbell v. MGN Ltd, it has
been stated:-
"Both reflect important civilized values, but,
as often happens, neither can be given effect
in full measure without restricting the other,
How are they to be reconciled in a particular
case? There is in my view no question of
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 154 of 211



automatic priority. Nor is there a presumption
in favour of one rather than the other. The
question is rather the extent to which it is
necessary to qualify the one right in order to
protect the underlying value which is
protected by the other. And the extent of the
qualification must be proportionate to the
need. ..."
39. In Wisconsin v. Constantineau18 it has
been observed that:-
"9. Where a person‘s good name, reputation,
honor, or integrity is at stake because of what
the government is doing to him, notice and an
opportunity to be heard are essential.
"Posting" under the Wisconsin Act may to some
be merely the mark of illness, to others it is a
stigma, an official branding of a person. The
label is a degrading one. Under the Wisconsin
Act, a resident of Hartford is given no process
at all. This appellee was not afforded a chance
to defend herself. She may have been the victim
of an official‘s caprice. Only when the whole
proceedings leading to the pinning of an
unsavory label on a person are aired can
oppressive results be prevented."
40. In Rosenblatt v. Baer19 Mr. Justice Stewart
observed that:-
"33.The right of a man to the protection of his
own reputation from unjustified invasion and
wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic
concept of the essential dignity and worth of
every human being -- a concept at the root of
any decent system of ordered liberty."
41. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto
1995 2 SCR 1130 Can SC
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 155 of 211



"(ii) The Reputation of the Individual
107. The other value to be balanced in a
defamation action is the protection of the
reputation of the individual.
Although much has very properly been said
and written about the importance of freedom of
expression, little has been written of the
importance of reputation. Yet, to most people,
their good reputation is to be cherished above
all. A good reputation is closely related to the
innate worthiness and dignity of the individual.
It is an attribute that must, just as much as
freedom of expression, be protected by
society‘s laws. In order to undertake the
balancing required by this case, something
must be said about the value of reputation.
108. Democracy has always recognized and
cherished the fundamental importance of an
individual. That importance must, in turn, be
based upon the good repute of a person. It is
that good repute which enhances an
individual‘s sense of worth and value. False
allegations can so very quickly and completely
destroy a good reputation. A reputation
tarnished by libel can seldom regain its
former lustre. A democratic society, therefore,
has an interest in ensuring that its members
can enjoy and protect their good reputation so
long as it is merited."
42. In the approach of the South African
Courts, "human dignity" is one of the founding
values of the South African Constitution
(Clause 1). The Constitution protects dignity
(clause 7), privacy (clause 14) and freedom of
expression (clause 16). In Khumalo v.
Holomisa, 2002 ZACC 12 the Court said:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 156 of 211



"27. In the context of the actio injuriarum, our
common law has separated the causes of action
for claims for injuries to reputation (fama) and
dignitas. Dignitas concerns the individual‘s
own sense of self worth, but included in the
concept are a variety of personal rights
including, for example, privacy. In our new
constitutional order, no sharp line can be
drawn between these injuries to personality
rights. The value of human dignity in our
Constitution is not only concerned with an
individual‘s sense of self-worth, but constitutes
an affirmation of the worth of human beings in
our society. It includes the intrinsic worth of
human beings shared by all people as well as
the individual reputation of each person built
upon his or her own individual achievements.
The value of human dignity in our
Constitution therefore values both the
personal sense of self-worth as well as the
public‘s estimation of the worth or value of an
individual. It should also be noted that there is
a close link between human dignity and
privacy in our constitutional order . [a footnote
here in the judgment reads: "See National
Coalition .. at para 30: "The present case
illustrates how, in particular circumstances,
the rights of equality and dignity are closely
related, as are the rights of dignity and
privacy."] The right to privacy, entrenched in
section 14 of the Constitution, recognises that
human beings have a right to a sphere of
intimacy and autonomy that should be
protected from invasion... This right serves to
foster human dignity. No sharp lines then can
be drawn between reputation, dignitas and
privacy in giving effect to the value of human
dignity in our Constitution. ...
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 157 of 211



28. The law of defamation seeks to protect the
legitimate interest individuals have in their
reputation. To this end, therefore, it is one of
the aspects of our law which supports the
protection of the value of human dignity. When
considering the constitutionality of the law of
defamation, therefore, we need to ask whether
an appropriate balance is struck between the
protection of freedom of expression on the one
hand, and the value of human dignity on the
other."
43. In Lindon v. France 2008 46 EHRR, Judge
Loucaides, in his concurring opinion, held:-]
"Accepting that respect for reputation is
an autonomous human right, which
derives its source from the Convention
itself, leads inevitably to a more effective
protection of the reputation of individuals
vis-a-vis freedom of expression."
In the said case, the Court has expressly
recognised that protection of reputation is a
right which is covered by the scope of the right
to respect for one‘s private life under Article 8
of the Convention. In course of deliberations
reference has been made to Chauvy and Others
v. France23, Abeberry v. France (dec.), no.
58729/00, 21 September 2004; and White v.
Sweden 2007 EMLR 1.
44. In Karako v. Hungary 2011 52 EHRR 36
the Court has opined that:-
"24. The Court reiterates that paragraph 2
of Article 10 recognises that freedom of
speech may be restricted in order to protect
reputation (see paragraph 16 above). In
other words, the Convention itself
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 158 of 211



announces that restrictions on freedom of
expression are to be determined within the
framework of Article 10 enshrining
freedom of speech.
25. The Court is therefore satisfied that the
inherent logic of Article 10, that is to say, the
special rule contained in its second paragraph,
precludes the possibility of conflict with Article
8. In the Court‘s view, the expression "the
rights of others" in the latter provision
encompasses the right to personal integrity and
serves as a ground for limitation of freedom of
expression in so far as the interference
designed to protect private life is
proportionate."
45. In Axel Springer AG v. Germany 2012
55EHRR 6 ECHR it has been ruled:-
"... [T]he right to protection of reputation is a
right which is protected by Article 8 of the
Convention as part of the right to respect for
private life ... In order for Article 8 to come
into play, however, an attack on a person‘s
reputation must attain a certain level of
seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice
to personal enjoyment of the right to respect
for private life ... The Court has held,
moreover, that Article 8 cannot be relied on in
order to complain of a loss of reputation which
is the foreseeable consequence of one‘s own
actions such as, for example, the commission of
a criminal offence ...
When examining the necessity of an
interference in a democratic society in the
interests of the "protection of the reputation or
rights of others", the Court may be required to
verify whether the domestic authorities struck a
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 159 of 211



fair balance when protecting two values
guaranteed by the Convention which may come
into conflict with each other in certain cases,
namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression
protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the
right to respect for private life enshrined in
Article 8."
The perspective of this Court
46. In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and
others1983 1 SCC 124, the Court has opined
that expression "Life" does not merely connote
animal existence or a continued drudgery
through life. Further, it proceeded to state

thus:-
" 13... The expression "life" has a much
wider meaning. Where therefore the
outcome of a departmental enquiry is
likely to adversely affect reputation or
livelihood of a person, some of the finer
graces of human civilization which make
life worth living would be jeopardised
and the same can be put in jeopardy only
by law which inheres fair procedures. In
this context one can recall the famous
words of Chapter II of Bhagwad-Gita:
"Sambhavitasya Cha Kirti Marnadati
Richyate"
47. In Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and
another1989 1SCC 494, a three-Judge Bench,
while dealing with the petition for quashing of
the inquiry report against the petitioner
therein, referred to Section 8-B of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and opined
that the importance has been attached with
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 160 of 211



regard to the matter of safeguarding the
reputation of a person being prejudicially
affected in clause (b) of Section 8-B of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act. It is because
reputation of an individual is a very ancient
concept. The Court referred to the words of
caution uttered by Lord Krishna to Arjun in
Bhagwad Gita with regard to dishonour or loss
of reputation; and proceeded to quote:-
"22….Akirtinchapi bhutani kathaishyanti te-
a-vyayam, Sambha-vitasya Chakirtir
maranadatirichyate. (2.34)
(Men will recount thy perpetual dishonour,
and to one highly esteemed, dishonour
exceedeth death.)"
Thereafter, the Court referred to Blackstone‘s
Commentary of the Laws of England, Vol. I,
4th Edn., wherein it has been stated that the
right of personal security consists in a person‘s
legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life,
his limbs, his body, his health and his
reputation. Thereafter, advertence was made to
the statement made in Corpus Juris Secundum,
Vol. 77 at p. 268 which is to the following
effect:-
"24….It is stated in the definition Person, 70
C.J.S. p. 688 note 66 that legally the term
"person" includes not only the physical body
and members, but also every bodily sense and
personal attribute, among which is the
reputation a man has acquired . Blackstone in
his Commentaries classifies and distinguishes
those rights which are annexed to the person,
jura personarum, and acquired rights in
external objects, jura rerum; and in the former
he includes personal security, which consists in
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 161 of 211



a person‘s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment
of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and
his reputation. And he makes the
corresponding classification of remedies. The
idea expressed is that a man‘s reputation is a
part of himself, as his body and limbs are, and
reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good
opinion of others, and it is capable of growth
and real existence, as an arm or leg.
Reputation is, therefore, a personal right, and
the right to reputation is put among those
absolute personal rights equal in dignity and
importance to security from violence.
According to Chancellor Kent as a part of the
rights of personal security, the preservation of
every person‘s good name from the vile arts of
detraction is justly included. The laws of the
ancients, no less than those of modern
nations, made private reputation one of the
objects of their protection.
The right to the enjoyment of a good
reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient
origin, and necessary to human society, as
stated in Libel and Slander Section 4, and this
right is within the constitutional guaranty of
personal security as stated in Constitutional
Law Section 205, and a person may not be
deprived of this right through falsehood and
violence without liability for the injury as
stated in Libel and Slander Section 4.
Detraction from a man‘s reputation is an
injury to his personality, and thus an injury to
reputation is a personal injury, that is, an
injury to an absolute personal right".
Be it noted a passage from D.F. Marion v.
Davis 192755 ALR 171 Alabama, was
reproduced with approval:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 162 of 211



" 25….The right to the enjoyment of a private
reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is
of ancient origin, and is necessary to human
society. A good reputation is an element of
personal security, and is protected by the
Constitution equally with the right to the
enjoyment of life, liberty, and property ."
48. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab30, this
Court observed that the right to reputation is a
natural right . In Mehmood Nayyar Azam v.
State of Chhatisgarh and others 2012 8 SCC 1,
while discussing the glory of honourable life,
the Court observed:-
"1. …Albert Schweitzer, highlighting on the
Glory of Life, pronounced with conviction and
humility, "the reverence of life offers me my
fundamental principle on morality". The
aforesaid expression may appear to be an
individualistic expression of a great
personality, but, when it is understood in the
complete sense, it really denotes, in its
conceptual essentiality, and connotes, in its
macrocosm, the fundamental perception of a
thinker about the respect that life commands.
The reverence of life is insegregably associated
with the dignity of a human being who is
basically divine, not servile."
Elucidating further, the Court observed:-
"1…A human personality is endowed with
potential infinity and it blossoms when dignity
is sustained. The sustenance of such dignity has
to be the superlative concern of every sensitive
soul. The essence of dignity can never be
treated as a momentary spark of light or, for
that matter, "a brief candle", or "a hollow
bubble". The spark of life gets more
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 163 of 211



resplendent when man is treated with dignity
sans humiliation, for every man is expected to
lead an honourable life which is a splendid gift
of "creative intelligence". When a dent is
created in the reputation, humanism is
paralysed...."
49. In Vishwanath Agrawal v. Saral
Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 7 SCC 288 this
Court observed that reputation which is not
only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure
and the most precious perfume of life. It is a
revenue generator for the present as well as for
the posterity. In Umesh Kumar v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another 2013 10 SCC 591
the Court observed that
― 18…..personal rights of a human being
include the right of reputation. A good
reputation is an element of personal security
and is protected by the Constitution equally
with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty
and property and as such it has been held to be
a necessary element in regard to right to life of
a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 1966 recognises right to have
opinions and right to freedom of expression
under Article 19 is subject to the right of
reputation of others.
50. In Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others 2013 2 SCC 398, while
dealing with the term "person" in the context of
reputation, the Court after referring to the
authorities in Kiran Bedi (supra) and Nilgiris
Bar Association v. T.K. Mahalingam and
another 1998 1 SCC 550 held that:-
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 164 of 211



"58. The term "person" includes not only the
physical body and members but also every
bodily sense and personal attribute among
which is the reputation a man has acquired.
Reputation can also be defined to be good
name, the credit, honour or character which is
derived from a favourable public opinion or
esteem, and character by report. The right to
enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable
privilege of ancient origin and necessary to
human society. "Reputation" is an element of
personal security and is protected by the
Constitution equally with the right to
enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
Although "character" and "reputation" are
often used synonymously, but these terms are
distinguishable. "Character" is what a man is
and "reputation" is what he is supposed to be
in what people say he is. "Character" depends
on attributes possessed and "reputation" on
attributes which others believe one to possess.
The former signifies reality and the latter
merely what is accepted to be reality at
present. ..."
51. In Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan
and others 2014 5 SCC 417 it has been held
that
― 1……reputation is fundamentally a glorious
amalgam and unification of virtues which
makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and
satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of
inheritance on posterity. It is a nobility in itself
for which a conscientious man would never

barter it with all the tea of China or for that
matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue
has both horizontal and vertical qualities.
When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 165 of 211



It is an honour which deserves to be equally
preserved by the downtrodden and the
privileged. The aroma of reputation is an
excellence which cannot be allowed to be
sullied with the passage of time. It is dear to
life and on some occasions it is dearer than
life. And that is why it has become an
inseparable facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution. No one would like to have his
reputation dented, and it is perceived as an
honour rather than popularity .
52. In State of Gujarat and another v. Hon‘ble
High Court of Gujarat 1998 7 SCC 392, the
court opined:-
"99. …An honour which is a lost or life
which is snuffed out cannot be recompensed"
53. We have dwelled upon the view of this
Court as regards value of reputation and
importance attached to it. We shall be obliged,
as we are, to advert to some passages from the
aforementioned authorities and also from other
pronouncements to understand the Court‘s
"accent" on reputation as an internal and
central facet of right to life as projected under
Article 21 of the Constitution at a later stage.
54. Having reconnoitered the assessment of
the value of reputation and scrutinised the
conceptual meaning of the term "reputation",
we are required to weigh in the scale of
freedom of speech and expression, especially
under our Constitution and the nature of the
democratic polity the country has.‖
131. As observed in paragraph 195 of the said verdict the right to
free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other and
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 166 of 211



protection of reputation is a fundamental right and also a human right
and cumulatively serves the social interest. Vide the paragraph 196 of
the said verdict, it has also been observed to the effect that the
submissions that imposition of silence will rule over eloquence of free
speech is a stretched concept in as much as the said proposition is
basically founded on the theory of absoluteness of the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression which the Constitution does
not countenance.
CIVIL ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF RIGHT TO REPUTATION

132. Though undoubtedly, the verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court in Subramaniam Swamy (supra) relates to the aspect of
upholding the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 of the
Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 nevertheless, the ambit of the right to reputation
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that it has necessary
existence in conjunction with the right to freedom of speech and
expression in a manner whereby both the fundamental rights of the
right of reputation inherent under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and the right to freedom of speech and expression ordained
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India are both to co-exist
in harmony and as a consequence thereof, as observed in paragraph
137 of the said verdict already adverted to herein above and also as
observed in Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji
Maharaj and others v. The State of Gujarat and others 1975 (1)
SCC 127, it has been observed that a particular fundamental right
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 167 of 211



cannot exist in isolation in a watertight compartment and one
fundamental right of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with
the exercise of another fundamental right by others and also with
reasonable and valid exercise of power by the State in the light of the
Directive Principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole and
that it is essential to observe that as laid down vide paragraphs 68 and
69 of the said verdict which read to the effect:
―68. The position has further become clear in Ganga
Bai v. Vijay Kumar wherein this Court has ruled
thus:-
― There is an inherent right in every person to bring a
suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by
statue one may, at one‘s peril, bring a suit one‘s
choice. It is no answer to a suit, howsoever frivolous
the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue.
A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of
law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit."
69. We have referred to this aspect only to clarify the
position that it is beyond any trace of doubt that civil
action for which there is no codified law in India, a
common law right can be taken recourse to under
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
unless there is specific statutory bar in that
regard.‖,—
the right to civil action for infringement of the right to reputation and
thus to sue against defamation is a cause of action for which though
there being no codified law in India, civil action can be taken recourse
to under Section 9 of the CPC 1908 and thus the observation of the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in relation to the ambit and contours of the
right to reputation as being inherent under Article 21 of the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 168 of 211



Constitution of India with which the right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) has to be balanced and that the right
to reputation cannot be sacrificed or crucified at the altar of the right
of freedom of speech and expression, has equal force in a civil action.
VERDICT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012 IN
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS DATED 26.09.2018

133. The balancing of the fundamental right of the individual to his /
her reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in co-
existence in harmony with the exercise of the right of freedom of
speech and expression of another under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India has been upheld once again as brought forth
through the observations in paras 312, 313 and 314 of the majority
judgment in the famous Aadhar case, vide verdict dated 26.09.2018,
which read to the effect : -
―312) This very exercise of balancing of two
fundamental rights was also carried out in Subramanian
Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors.106
where the Court dealt with the matter in the following
manner:
―122. In State of Madras v. V.G. Row [State of Madras v.
V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 Cri LJ 966], the
Court has ruled that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute
impugned and no abstract standard, or general pattern of
reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all
cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been
infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions
imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 169 of 211



prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the
judicial verdict.
xx xx xx

105515 US 646 (1995)
106(2016) 7 SCC 221

130. The principles as regards reasonable restriction as
has been stated by this Court from time to time are that
the restriction should not be excessive and in public
interest. The legislation should not invade the rights and
should not smack of arbitrariness. The test of
reasonableness cannot be determined by laying down any
abstract standard or general pattern. It would depend
upon the nature of the right which has been infringed or
sought to be infringed. The ultimate ―impact‖, that is,
effect on the right has to be determined. The ―impact
doctrine‖ or the principle of ―inevitable effect‖ or
―inevitable consequence‖ stands in contradistinction to
abuse or misuse of a legislation or a statutory provision
depending upon the circumstances of the case. The
prevailing conditions of the time and the principles of
proportionality of restraint are to be kept in mind by the
court while adjudging the constitutionality of a provision
regard being had to the nature of the right. The nature of
social control which includes public interest has a role.
The conception of social interest has to be borne in mind
while considering reasonableness of the restriction
imposed on a right. The social interest principle would
include the felt needs of the society.
xx xx xx Balancing of fundamental rights
136. To appreciate what we have posed hereinabove, it is
necessary to dwell upon balancing the fundamental
rights. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the right conferred under Article
19(1)(a) has to be kept at a different pedestal than the
individual reputation which has been recognised as an
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 170 of 211



aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution. In fact the
submission is that right to freedom of speech and
expression which includes freedom of press should be
given higher status and the individual's right to have
his/her reputation should yield to the said right. In this
regard a passage from Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. [Sakal
Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842 :
AIR 1962 SC 305] has been commended to us.
It says: (AIR pp. 313-14, para 36) ―36. … Freedom of
speech can be restricted only in the interests of the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign State,
public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. It cannot, like the freedom to carry on business,
be curtailed in the interest of the general public. If a law
directly affecting it is challenged, it is no answer that the
restrictions enacted by it are justifiable under clauses (3)
to (6). For, the scheme of Article 19 is to enumerate
different freedoms separately and then to specify the
extent of restrictions to which they may be subjected and
the objects for securing which this could be done. A
citizen is entitled to enjoy each and every one of the
freedoms together and clause (1) does not prefer one
freedom to another. That is the plain meaning of this
clause. It follows from this that the State cannot make a
law which directly restricts one freedom even for
securing the better enjoyment of another freedom.‖
(emphasis supplied)
137. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the
said passage, we are disposed to think that the above
passage is of no assistance to the petitioners, for the issue
herein is sustenance and balancing of the separate
rights, one under Article 19(1)(a) and the other,
under Article 21. Hence, the concept of equipoise and
counterweighing fundamental rights of one with other
person. It is not a case of mere better enjoyment of
another freedom. In Acharya Maharajshri Narendra
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 171 of 211



Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat
[Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji
Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 11], it has
been observed that a particular fundamental right cannot
exist in isolation in a watertight compartment.
One fundamental right of a person may have to coexist
in harmony with the exercise of another fundamental
right by others and also with reasonable and valid
exercise of power by the State in the light of the directive
principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole.
The Court's duty is to strike a balance between
competing claims of different interests… xx xx xx
194. Needless to emphasise that when a law limits a
constitutional right which many laws do, such limitation
is constitutional if it is proportional. The law imposing
restriction is proportional if it is meant to achieve a
proper purpose, and if the measures taken to achieve
such a purpose are rationally connected to the purpose,
and such measures are necessary. Such limitations
should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond
what is required in the interest of the public.
Reasonableness is judged with reference to the objective
which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not be in
excess of that objective (see P.P. Enterprises v. Union of
India [P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC
33 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 341]). Further, the reasonableness is
examined in an objective manner from the standpoint of
the interest of the general public and not from the point
of view of the person upon whom the restrictions are
imposed or abstract considerations (see Mohd. Hanif
Quareshi v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731]).‖
313) Thus, even when two aspects of the fundamental
rights of the same individual, which appear to be in
conflict with each other, is done, we find that the
Aadhaar Act has struck a fair balance between the right
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 172 of 211



of privacy of the individual with right to life of the same
individual as a beneficiary.
In the face of the all pervading prescript for
accomplished socio-economic rights, that need to be
given to the deprived and marginalised section of the
society, as the constitutional imperative embodied in
these provisions of the Act, it is entitled to receive judicial
imprimatur.
Re : Argument on Exclusion:
314) Some incidental aspects, however, remain to be
discussed. It was argued by the petitioners that the entire
authentication process is probabilistic in nature
inasmuch as case of a genuine person for authentication
can result in rejection as biometric technology does not
guarantee 100% accuracy. It may happen for various
reasons, namely, advance age, damage to fingerprints
due to accident, etc. Even in case of children the
fingerprints may change when they grow up. The
emphasis was that there was a possibility of failure in
authentication for various reasons and when it happens
it would result in the exclusion rather than inclusion. In
such eventuality an individual would not only be denied
the benefits of welfare schemes, it may threaten his very
identity and existence as well and it would be violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Authority has
claimed that biometric accuracy is 99.76%. It was,
however, submitted that where more than 110 crores of
persons have enrolled themselves, even 0.232% failure
would be a phenomenal figure, which comes to 27.60
lakh people. Therefore, the rate of exclusion is alarming
and this would result in depriving needy persons to enjoy
their fundamental rights, which is the so-called laudable
objective trumpeted by the respondents. TO DICTATE
FURTHER Re. : Studies on exclusion Re. : Finger prints
of disabled, old persons etc. See other mode of identity. ‖
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 173 of 211



and observations in para 194 of the dissenting judgment of Hon‘ble
Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud J. which too lays down that the
balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity , though
it relates to the attempt of the Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union
of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 to harmonize reputation as an intrinsic
element of the right to life under Article 21 with criminal defamation
as a restriction under Article 19(2).
APPLICABILITY OF RULE IN BONNARD V. PERRYMAN

134. The other contentions raised on behalf of the respondents is that
in view of the principle in Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2 (Ch) 269] ,
Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2001) SCC Online Del 1030 ,
Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International 2011 SCC Online Del 466 ,
His Holiness Shamar Rimpoche v. Lea Terhune, and Indu Jain v.
Forbes Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del 1424 of this Court that where
defendant in the civil suit of defamation pleads justification, there is
no interim injunction can be granted and in the event that the said
defendant were to file in its defence, damages would be an adequate
remedy.
135. The verdict of this Court in Bhaichung Bhutia Vs. Saumik
Dutta & Ors. (2014) 215 DLT 415 spells out elopently as under : -
13. It is correct that freedom of expression in press and
media is the part of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of
India where by all the citizens have a right to express
their view. However, the said right of the expression is
also not absolute but is subjected to the reasonable
restrictions imposed by the Parliament or State in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 174 of 211



States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. The said position is clear from the plain reading
of the Article 19(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.
14. The right to press and its freedom to express the ideas
in public has always been the integral part of healthy
democracy and the prior restraint on the publication was
considered to be acceptable under the earlier line of
authorities. The Courts have always indicated that the
fine balance is required to made so that the said liberty of
press should not be uncontrolled or regulated by laws
including the laws relating to public order, contempt etc
and the same is subject to reasonable restrictions as per
the Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
15. The Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board
of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603 observed that the prior
restraint against publication is vested in the form of
inherent powers of the superior Courts including High
Court under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure wherein the Court can proceed to pass
such restraint orders if the administration of justice so
warrants approving the judgment of Naresh Shridhar
Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1. It has
also been held by the Supreme Court that the right to
open justice which is free and unprejudiced is a basic
right that has to be balanced vis-a-vis the right to press
and expression of ideas which is the facet of the right to
speech and expression‖
(emphasis supplied)
and vide para 18 thereof grants the interim restraint against the
publication and re-publication of defamatory imputation against the
plaintiff in that suit similar to an article previously submitted in as
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 175 of 211



much as otherwise irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the
plaintiff and similar articles issued were liable to be postponed.
136. It is essential to observe that the plea of fair comment implies
making of a genuine effort to reach truth and a mere belief of there
being truth without there being reasonable grounds for such plea is not
synonymous with fair comment.
137. The verdict of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Vinod Mehta &
Ors. 102 (2003) DLT 774 lays down categorically that mere belief of
the printer / publisher that the report is incorrect would not be a
defence unless that they had acted with due care and question.
138. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents on the
verdict of this court in Indo Jain Vs. Forbes Incorporated I.A.
12993/2006 in CS(OS) 2172/2006 decided on 21.10.2007 to contend
that the plea of justification is available to them and that thus if there
is inaccuracy and incorrectness of publication established, the
adequate remedy would only be in damages and not by an ad-interim
injunction, which cannot be accepted in as much as there was a pre-
publication to the information given by the defendants in that case to
the plaintiff of that case of the methodology that the defendant would
adopt for computation of wealth of the plaintiff therein to place her
wealth on to a website of the Times of India. The facts of the case in
Indu Jain Vs. Forbes Incorporated (supra) are thus not in pari
materia with the facts of the present case.
139. Reliance placed on behalf of the respondents on the verdict of
the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal and Ors. Vs. State of
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 176 of 211



Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1994) 6SCC 632 the facts of which likewise
are not in pari materia with the facts of the instant case in as much as
the publishers therein have been held entitled to publish the life
story/autobiography of Auto Shanker in so far as it appeared from the
public records, even without his consent or authorization. In the
instant case the avowed contentions of the petitioner have been that as
regards the publication in “Chapter 16 Mystery 2 : The Guru‟s
Disappearance” in the BOOK to implicitly state that the petitioner
was somehow involved or complicit in the disappearance of his Guru
Shanker Dev Ji and that further he, the petitioner having used his
influence with the Government was able to scuttle the investigation
which was not handled in a fair and transparent manner, coupled with
the factum that the said publication came to the knowledge of the
petitioner on 29.07.2017 after the Special Judicial Magistrate
(CBI)/ACJM(I) Dehradun vide order dated 13.02.2015 accepted the
closure report filed by the CBI in this matter, which aspect was not
adverted to by the author and thus in view of the order dated
13.02.2015 of the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI)/ACJM(I)
Dehradun in case No. 1428/14 vide which the closure report
submitted by the CBI in relation to the missing report for Guru
Shanker Devi Ji at PS Khankhan, Haridwar, which was registered on
16.07.2007 was closed, the publication in relation to this aspect in
2017 prima facie cannot be held to be justified. The plaintiff of the
case Acharya Bal Krishan is also indicated vide order dated
13.02.2015 of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI)/ACJM(I) Dehradun
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 177 of 211



having given his no objection to the final report given by CBI being
accepted.
140. As regards “Chapter 9 Mystery 1: The Ally‟s Murder”
which relates to the death of the Swami Yoganand, the key associate
of the petitioner, it is contended by the petitioner that through the said
chapter which reads to the effect : -
―Mystery l: The Ally's Murder

Kankhal, 27 December 2004

A day after the Asian tsunami swept up the shorelines of
fourteen countries', killing nearly a quarter of a million
people, an intriguing event occurred in Kankhal. In the
darkening winter evening of 27 December 2004, a scuffle
broke out in the single-storey Yogananda Ashram, home
to Swami Yogananda, the man whose licence had
enabled Divya Pharmacy to function and grow for eight
years since its inception in 1995 till 2003.
Yogananda's neighbours are cagey about discussing it
even today but they say they heard raised voices coming
from his house that eventful evening. No one imagined,
though,, that Yogananda — the lonely man who lived
without a telephone or even electricity — was being
knifed to death. One Vasant Kumar Singh discovered‖
his lifeless body shortly after and called the police. Along
with other neighbours, the young Tarun Kumar went in
with the police. 'I remember it still. He was there in that
dark room when I went in …. lying m a pool of his own
blood.'

As mentioned earlier, in 2003 Divya Pharmacy had
abruptly changed the vaidy on its registration from
Swami Yogananda is said to have had a falling out with
Ramdevs increasingly powerful enterprise but the
reasons for this are still unknown.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 178 of 211




With Yoganandas death, a key associate who had
provided critical help to Ramdev in his early days was
gone.lhe murder remains unsolved till date. Ten months
later, on 25 October 2005, investigating officer B.B.
Juyal filed his final report in the case - Case unsolved.

Perpetrators unknown.‖

it has been insinuated against the petitioner that he had something to
do with the murder of Swami Yogananda on account of a falling out
between the petitioner and Swami Yogananda and the petitioner
contends that it has been further represented as if the Investigating
Officer had filed an extraordinary report by stating that the
perpetrators were unknown and that the respondents had not clarified
that such reports are called "Untrace Reports‖ and are common place
and that the same had been done with the sole intention of creating an
aura of suspicion so as to defame the petitioner and that in the light of
the ―Untraced Report‖ which has also been admitted by the author, it
is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is clear that there was
no way for the respondents to prove that the allegations were true and
accordingly no defence would succeed in relation to the same. Prima
facie the factum that there was an ―Untrace Report‖ in existence, there
exists no justification for creation of an aura of suspicion against the
petitioner in relation to the murder of the Swami Yogananda rightly
contended on behalf of the petitioner.
141. As regards the “Chapter Mystery 3: Mentor‟s Sudden
Death” as published in the BOOK qua which it is submitted through
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 179 of 211



the written submissions of the petitioner that it was sought to be
brought forth by the author that there was some foul play in relation to
the death of Rajiv Dixit and that the petitioner was unwilling to permit
the conducting of the postmortem in a bid to cover up the foul play,
the allegation was totally unfounded in view of the death certificate of
Rajiv Dixit disclosing that he had died a natural death caused by an
acute myocardial infraction (heart attack) which death certificate has
never been challenged nor was there any pending investigation in
relation thereto and in view of the death certificate, there is no way for
the respondents to prove that the allegations were true and in trial, no
defence would succeed in relation thereto, taking into account the
factum that the author also mentions at page 140 in this chapter to the
effect : -
―As the convoy drew up to the cremation ghats, where
thousands of people had already gathered, Ramdev
turned to Pradeep Dixit and suddenly said, 'Look, if you
want, we can do the postmortem.'
Taken aback, Dixit said, 'Swamiji, all these people are
already here. You have taken a decision for all of us not
to do the postmortem. There is no point talking about it
now, is there?'
When asked why he said this, Pradeep Dixit explains,
'What was I supposed to say? Everyone had reached the
cremation ghat. I didn't know what to say... People were
whispering all kinds of things to me. If they were true
then what was the guarantee that the postmortem report
would not be doctored? ... I was not in a condition to defy
him.‖
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 180 of 211



which brings forth that the author does mention that the petitioner told
Pradeep Dixit the brother of the Rajeev Dixit that if he wanted the
postmortem could be done, Read in toto, thus the observations put
forth in relation to Rajeev Dixit‘s death, prima facie , do not culminate
into any insinuation or allegation against the petitioner apart from his
continuous refrain that he did not want the body of Rajeev Dixit to be
cut into pieces for a postmortem which he thought was against the
Hindu Dharma as his indicated twice in this Chapter at pages 137, 138
and 139 of the BOOK , which read to the effect : -
―Finally, Ramdev relented to a meeting at 7.30 a.m. and
called in Dubey and his associates but only after taking
away out cellphones, to make sure nothing was recorded,
Dubey recalls, a fear that even Kirit Mehta referred to
during his fateful encounter with Ramdev.
Dubey sat closest to Ramdev – he had been appointed the
speaker for his party. I gave him the petition, signed by
fifty people, asking for a postmortem, says Dubey.
According to Dubey, this is how that meeting unfolded.
Ramdev asked, So what do you want?
Dubey replied, All of us are trustees of the Azadi Bachao
Andolan and we want a postmortem.
What is the need for it? This is a natural death.;
We have out doubts. So, lets get a postmortem done.
It‘s very simple.
But I spoke to the doctors myself. I have reports from the
doctors that he had a heart attack and all that;
We don‘s trust it. We want a postmortem.
No. no……. I know it was a natural death.
How can you know: You were not there. You were only
talking to them on the phone. How can you be sure there
was no conspiracy.
But why will anyone conspire like that?
There can be many who might. You are well aware of it.

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 181 of 211



Ramdev was growing angrier by the minutes at what he
must have seen as Dubey‘s insolence. He tried to rule out
a postmortem saying it was against 'Hindu dharma'. But
Dubey dismissed this objection saying, He [RajeevDixit]
had no dharma. His dharma was the service of his
country. He never called himself a man of any religion.
So don't worry about Hindu dharma and get the
postmortem done. It is good for you and it is good for us
that all this becomes clear. Otherwise, fingers will be
pointed ...'
But Ramdev was equally insistent. According to Dubey,
he said, Such cutting and chopping is not done in Hindu
dharma. A man is sent back the way he came.'
It seems to me that you don't want the postmortem to be
done.'
'Why would you say that?'
It was at this point that Dubey claims he became
incredibly blunt: Rajeev Dixit did have fights with some of
your people, didn't he? Your people had differences with
him, didn‘t they? I know they were upset that some
outsider like Rajeev Dixit came out of nowhere and
became the national secretary of the Bharat Swabhiman
Andolan. They were jealous that thousands of people used
to come to meet him.'
This back and forth went on for over an hour, says Dubey.
Finally, Ramdev suggested that they all go to the hall
where Dixit's body lay, and ask the people there, and the
Dixit family, for their opinion. This sounded like a
reasonable thing to do.
But while Ramdev sat in his car with his people and sped
off, Dubey and the others in his party followed on foot to
the hall that was a twenty-minute walk away.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 182 of 211



Before Dubey and Company could get there, a visibly
angry Ramdev stormed into the hall, took the
microphone and said, 'Some people have come from
Mumbai. They want me to do a postmortem . . . such
cutting [of a dead body] is not permitted in Hindu
dharma.'
One of the mourners present in the hall, a Dr Suman from
Haryana who was closely involved with the work of the
Bharat Swabhiman Andolan and Rajeev Dixit, stood up
and said, 'So why aren't you getting it [a postmortem]
done?' Ramdev was livid at being openly questioned, and
was in no mood to answer.
Turning to his men, he commanded, 'Get the body ready
for its final journey. The cremation was originally
scheduled for 11 a.m. It was still only nine.
Ramdev's men got the body ready for cremation, quickly
carried it into an ambulance, and set off for the cremation
ghats. 'We were just arriving at the hall after our walk
from his house when we saw the ambulance driving away
with Rajeevbhai's body in it,' remembers Dubey 'We
panicked and tried to stop the ambulance from leaving
because we knew that once the body was cremated, our
questions could never be answered,' says Dubey, his voice
still filled with regret.‖
In this context thus the contention of the petitioner seeking to contend
that there were deliberate insinuations against him made by the author
that he was not willing to get the postmortem conducted on the body
of Rajeev Dixit to cover up a foul play, prima facie , cannot be
accepted.
PLEADING IN PLAINT OF FALSITY, DEFAMATORY
ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE BOOK

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 183 of 211



142. The other contention raised on behalf of the respondent is to the
effect that the petitioner does not contend specifically that the contents
of the BOOK are false and in the absence of such assertions the
prayer made by the petitioner ought not to be granted, in relation to
this aspect, it is essential to observe that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner
through his plaint has categorically averred that the contents of the
BOOK are malicious and completely out of context with ulterior
motive with twisted, misleading, incorrect, defamatory and false
averments. This contention thus raised on behalf of the respondents is
thus not accepted.
PETITIONER, A PUBLIC PERSON – PUBLIC INTEREST TO
KNOW ALL ABOUT HIM

143. Contentions that have been raised by the respondents that the
petitioner being a public person cannot be thin skinned and being a
public figure necessarily has to volunteer his life for public
examination in public interest that people know about his doings even
in his personal life and because the petitioner exercises
disproportionate control over the media and can issue correctives
widely and the petitioner herein has even controverted allegations
when confronted in as much as all these issues in the BOOK which
the petitioner alleges to be defamatory have been more expressly dealt
with by reports, newspapers and TV journalists and other media and
the petitioner has over and again been satisfied with responding to
them by controverting them when confronted and thus all that the
author had sought to do was to put forth a fair comment which the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 184 of 211



publisher has published contending that it has been done in public
interest.
144. In relation to this submission, it is essential to observe that as
laid down in Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
10 SCC 1 as observed vide paragraphs 623, 624 & 625 to the effect : -
“ 623. An individual has a right to protect his
reputation from being unfairly harmed and such
protection of reputation needs to exist not only
against falsehood but also certain truths. It cannot
be said that a more accurate judgment about
people can be facilitated by knowing private
details about their lives – people judge us badly,
they judge us in haste, they judge out of context,
they judge without hearing the whole story and
they judge with hypocrisy. Privacy lets people
protect themselves from these troublesome
judgments.
624. There is no justification for making all
truthful information available to the public. The
public does not have an interest in knowing all
information that is true. Which celebrity has had
sexual relationships with whom might be of
interest to the public but has no element of public
interest and may therefore be a breach of
privacy.19 Thus, truthful information that
breaches privacy may also require protection.
625. Every individual should have a right to be
able to exercise control over his/her own life and
image as portrayed to the world and to control
commercial use of his/her identity. This also means
that an individual may be permitted to prevent
others from using his image, name and other
aspects of his/her personal life and identity for
commercial purposes without his/her consent. ”

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 185 of 211



145. Thus as laid down thereby, whatever may be of the interest to
the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach
of privacy and an individual thus has a right to protection to protect
his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only
against false truth but also certain truths. It is thus in this context that
the verdicts in Sardar Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie & Ors. 1983
(4) DRJ 86, Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2001) SCC
Online Del 1030, Indu Jain v. Forbes Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del
1424 coupled with the factum that the submissions of the respondents
themselves in relation to the aspect of there being no meaningful
difference now between public officials and public figures in view of
the verdict of the Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor & Ors 1995
32(DRJ) 142 have to be read wherein the right to reputation and
privacy has been extended to an individual against making a film
against the appellant herein shaming her being raped and paraded
nude.
146. It is essential to observe that the petitioner herein admittedly
being a public figure, cannot ipso facto termed to having given a
license to the respondents for his defamation.
REPETITION OF LIBEL AND ACQUIESCENCE
147. As regards the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents
in relation to the prior publication having been concealed by the
petitioners and the contentions that the prior publication had far more
invasive comments against the petitioner and that thus the petitioner
having acquiesced to their existence cannot now seek to contend that
any rights of his have been assaulted, it has rightly been contended on
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 186 of 211



behalf of the petitioner that for the purposes of an action for libel,
without any observations on the aspect presently as to what is detailed
in the BOOK is a libel or a hearsay statement for the purposes of the
law of libel a hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement and
that repeated libellous statements are thus libellous as observed in
Lewis vs. Daily Telegraph (1964) AC 234 . Thus, the contentions
raised on behalf of the respondents that 25,000 copies of the BOOK
have already entered in the market and no useful purpose would be
now served by grant of ad-interim injunction before conclusion of the
trial in as much as the copies which have already entered into the
market will continue to sell, re-sell and be read and re-read cannot be
accepted as also brought forward through the verdict of this Court in
Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami 2017 SCC Onling 12049 and
Bhaichung Bhutia Vs. Saumik Dutta & Ors. (2014) 215 DLT 415
which restrained publishing and re-publishing of alleged defamatory
imputations.
148. The petitioner has submitted in relation to this aspect that it
would have to be established and proved by the respondent that the
subject matter of the rumour is true and not merely that such rumour
existed. The factum that the petitioner has put forth that the statements
made in some of the publications were made prior to the closure
report being accepted on 13.02.2015 and prior to the Untrace report
having been accepted by the Trial Court, it is prima facie apparent
that the petitioner cannot be held to have consented in clear and
unequivocal terms for the publications that had been made previously
qua which there has been a repudiation.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 187 of 211



GRANT OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
149. As regards the contentions on behalf of the respondents placing
reliance on Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2 (Ch) 269] to contend that
an interlocutory injunction ought not to be granted when the
defendants justified the libel and that in the event of their not
succeeding in justifying the libel, damages would suffice and
consequently reliance thus placed on the verdicts of this Court in Tata
Sons v. Greenpeace International 2011 SCC Online Del 466, Sardar
Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie & Ors. 1983 (4) DRJ 86 and Indu
Jain v. Forbes Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del 1424, it is essential as
already observed hereinabove that Bonnard v. Perryman [1891 2
(Ch) 269] itself holds that such an interlocutory injunction ought to be
granted when the defendant contends that he will be able to justify the
libel and the Court is, prima facie , not satisfied that he may be able to
do so. Significantly, the impugned order also reflects that the defence
proposed by the respondents is weak and furthermore the author
through the written statement submitted before the Trial Court that
‗the truth is a multi layered phenomenon‘ and the publisher through
its written statement claims that the allegations are ‗legitimate
surmises‘.
150. In the instant case as already observed hereinabove prima
facie that there is a closure report accepted by the Special Judicial
Magistrate (CBI)/ACJM(I) Dehradun in relation to the missing of
Guru Shanker Devi Ji, the spiritual mentor of the petitioner, and
there an “Untrace Report” in relation to the murder of Swami
Yogananda, which were in existence prior to the publication of
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 188 of 211



the BOOK published in 2017. Prima facie , thus this Court is not
satisfied that the respondents would be able to justify these two
allegations.
151. As regards the contentions raised by the respondents that there
have been certain words in the plaint which do not correspond to the
contents of the BOOK , i.e. the words such as ―When Ramdev‘s Guru
Mysteriously Mischievously Disappeared‖ and ―The Cryptic Note‖
left behind in Shanker Dev‘s Room and ―A Case Still Open‖ as
mentioned in the plaint, it has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the excerpts in the plaint are identical to the excerpts in
the BOOK and headings are also brought forward through the sources
delineated in the BOOK and that each of the excerpts are relatable to
portions within the BOOK which aspect on a perusal of the BOOK
and ―Sources‖ in the BOOK is found to be correct, as per submissions
made and comparison table submitted by the petitioner on 17.09.2018.
FAIR COMMENT IN BOOK?
152. The contention was raised on behalf of the respondents that the
BOOK was in fact laudatory of the petitioner in tone and wherever it
discusses criticism of the petitioner it also presents his defence and
there have only been fair comments made. It is essential to observe
that the contention of the petitioner has been that his reputation has
been affected by the words used in the BOOK and that an attempt has
been made to affect his reputation in the assumption of the right
thinking members of the society generally.
153. It is essential to observe that the defamatory statements need
only to have the tendency to affect the personal reputation and need
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 189 of 211



not actually lower it. However, the standard to be applied is as to
whether the reputation is affected in the estimation of right thinking
members of the society generally as laid down by the House of Laws
in Sim Vs. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237, in applying this test, the
statement complained of has to be read as a whole and the words used
in it are to be given their natural or ordinary meaning which may be
ascribed to them by ordinary men as laid down by the Hon‘ble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramakant Vs. Devilal, 1969 MPLJ 805
as the ordinary man after reading the writing does not contemplate of
reading it again and again for deriving its meaning and so the meaning
of words in a libel action ―is a matter of impression as an ordinary
man gets on the first reading, not on a later analysis‖ as laid down in
Lewis Vs. Daily Telegraph Ltd., (1963) 2 All EF 151 (HL) (154), the
question is not of construction in the legal sense for the ordinary man
―is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of construction and he
can and does read between the lines in the light of his general
knowledge and experience of worldly affairs‖ and further ―the
layman‘s capacity for implication is much greater than the lawyer‘s.
The lawyer‘s rule is that the implication must be necessary as well as
reasonable. The layman reads in an implication much more freely and
unfortunately, as the law of defamation has to take into account, is
especially prone to do so when it is derogatory.‖ If the defamatory
statement consists of an article with a headline and photograph the
whole of the article including the headline and photograph has to be
taken together and considered whether in its natural and ordinary
meaning which may be ascribed to it by ordinary men it is defamatory
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 190 of 211



of the plaintiff and as laid down in Charleston Vs. News Group
Newspaper Ltd. (1995) 2 All ER 313 .
154. A contention was raised on behalf of the respondents that no
innuendos were explained through the plaint and thus the contentions
of the petitioner that there were any statements made in the BOOK
violative of his right of reputation cannot be accepted. In relation to
this aspect it is essential to observe that in cases where no legal
innuendo is alleged, the Court after reading the published statement as
a whole ―is required to determine the single meaning which the
publication conveyed to the notional reasonable reader as laid down in
Charleston Vs. News Group Newspaper Ltd. (1995) 2 All ER 313 .
155. In England, the rule to be applied by a Judge in deciding
whether or not words were capable of a defamatory meaning is
whether a reasonable jury would be justified in finding that the words
complained of were defamatory, and, notwithstanding the various
inoffensive meanings which the words complained of might be said to
be capable of bearing, it should be impossible to hold that they were
not capable of a defamatory meaning as laid down in Morris Vs.
Sandess Universal Products, (1954) 1 All ER 47. In India however
where a defamation suit is not tried by jury, it is for the Judge to
decide finally the meaning of the words alleged to be defamatory
bearing in mind the test of an ordinary man. In a case of libel, it is not
necessary to prove the actual loss of reputation; it is sufficient to
establish that the defamatory statements made could damage one‘s
reputation as laid down in Sadashiba Vs. Bansidhar, AIR 1962 Ori
115 and Habib Bhai Vs. Pyarelal, AIR 1964 MP 62.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 191 of 211



156. It is essential to observe that the intention with which the words
are used is immaterial and thus the mere contentions of the
respondents that the BOOK is laudatory and was not intended to
defame the petitioner, is prima facie , not acceptable, for the Court has
to see as to how an ordinary reasonable reader on reading contents of
the portions of the BOOK adverted to hereinabove would interpret the
same and reflect upon the same. As laid down in Cassidy Vs. Daily
Mirror Newspaper, (1929) 2 KB 331 the liability for libel does not
depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of
defamation.
157. It is essential to observe that as laid down in Tushar Kanti
Ghose Vs. Bina Bhowmick, (1952) 57 CWN 378 where the plaintiff
has succeeded in proving that certain statements published in a
newspaper were clearly defamatory of the plaintiff, it is immaterial
whether the plaintiff succeeds or fails in establishing the inneundos
alleged by him and if he fails, he can treat the unproved inneundos as
surplusage and still contend that the words of the publication are
defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning.
158. That the petitioner is a public figure is indicated in the plaint
itself and by the factum of several publications informing the public
about him and has worked repeatedly. The factum that the petitioner
has access to Mass Media communication and newspapers both to
influence policy and to counter criticism of use of activity makes it
apparent that the citizens have a legitimate and substantial interest in
the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner having taken Sanyas and
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 192 of 211



apparently being acclaimed a spiritual and Yoga Guru, is also revered
and respected in society as has already been referred to hereinabove.
159. The articles published on the internet during the interregnum
when there was no restraint on the publication and purchase of the
BOOK and even thereafter which BOOK appears to have been read
by some of other authors other than the author of the BOOK even
when the ban was in existence, itself indicates the statements of
readers to the effect that the contents of the BOOK as per a review on
the internet goes to the extent of stating that as a reader, it makes you
question circumstantial evidence and murky happenings, that the
petitioner‟s life story is dotted by a mysterious murder, an odd
disappearance and a death under curious circumstances and of
his having associated with people for his benefit and serving his
ambitions and once they have fulfilled the need, they are no longer
required and that he has been quick enough to dissociate and that
the BOOK makes him a power hungry political ambitious person
lurking behind a legitimate or otherwise Ayurveda business and
that the same is good enough a description for a villain. This
BOOK review has already been adverted to elsewhere
hereinabove and inter alia states that Baba Ramdev himself had
come across as a highly ambitious villain who never gets his hands
dirty and that his plans are tactical and they seem to be working
and luck is on his side.
160. Another BOOK review published on the internet on 13.08.2017
states in context with the BOOK
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 193 of 211



―behind that charming and simplistic persona lies a mind
of great cunning that knows how to grab an opportunity,
manipulate, exploit and even threaten people to get his
work done………… The BOOK reveals a number of
unsavory facets of his business that fill one with revulsion
and disgust. To put it in short, I am never buying a
Patanjali product ever again. Thankfully, have ever used
only his toothpaste and honey so far so no great harm
done.‖

161. There are further BOOK reviews also stating that there is
hardly a place where the author pushes her point of view or tries to
bias the reader. In the same breath in the next sentence, the said
BOOK review dated 07.12.2017 states that nevertheless, there seems
to be a „skew‟ in this reporting and that is what makes Baba wanting
to prevent you from reading it.
162. Another review dated 07.08.2017 states “She is also fair –
both to Ramdev, and to her multiple interviewees.”
163. Another post review on the BOOK dated 13.08.2017 states
“mysterious deaths and disappearances of his close associates -----
-------- that is serious! It most certainly should be investigated.”
164. Another review dated 08.01.2018 states “not everything is as
good as it seems and the BOOKs has a lot to reveal.”
165. Another review dated 01.10.2017 states ―a very interesting
investigative journalistic work, I should say. The author has to be
appreciated for the such pain-staking hard work she has put in in
gathering information from various sources. She has tried to remain
unbiased throughout the narration. Nowhere has she shadowed the
facts with her opinions. There are may questions unanswered due to
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 194 of 211



lack of evidence. One may read this BOOK to understand how a big
giant like Patanjali was formed.‖
166. Another review states that “the BOOK is not defamatory as
the people opposing it seem to make it to be. It‟s extensively
researched with almost 30 pages of sources cited at the end of the
BOOK. The author also has interviewed a number of people who
have been and continue to be associated with Ramdev, a person
who seems to attract controversy like an open bottle of patanjali
honey attracts flies. She manages to be relatively neutral in most
of the BOOK, even seems to be an awe of his strategies and
achievements but does not deviate from the aim of the BOOK; to
create a sort – of biography estimating the start and rise of the
controversial “baba”.”
167. Though there are comments on the internet stating that the
BOOK is unbiased equally there are comments stating that the
petitioner is a villain. The Court thus has to consider the record on the
basis of what an ordinary reasonable reader would think of the
contents of the BOOK . Undoubtedly there are chapters on the
creation of the Patanjali Empire, which may be laudatory. Yet it
cannot be overlooked that in the impugned order of the learned ACJ
dated 28.04.2018 in MCA No. 8/2017 and MCA No. 10/2017 too, it is
observed that it is clarified that the net import of the judgment is not
that the petitioner herein has not suffered any damage to his reputation
on account of publication or sale of the BOOK of the respondents
herein.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 195 of 211



168. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the verdict of the
Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court dated 28.09.2018 in Pushp
Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and Forum for Media and
Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and Ors. in FAO (OS)
92/2018 and FAO (OS) 93/2018 to contend that the valuable right of
free speech is the life blood of democracy and ought not to be diluted
and that the salutary and established principle in issues that concern
free speech are that public figures and public institutions have to
fulfill a very high threshold to seek injunctive relief in respect of
alleged libel or defamation and that it is not unknown that in a suit for
permanent injunction, the plaintiff is unable to secure temporary
injunction.
169. At the outset, it is essential to be observe that the verdict in
Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and Forum for Media
and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) relates
to the grant of an ex-parte interim relief observing inter alia to the
effect that the ex-parte injunction granted in the said case qua the
entire duration of the suit without taking into account the principles in
Morgans Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das 1994 (4) SCC 225
as laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court to the effect : -
―As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted
only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which
should weigh with the court in the grant of ex parte
injunction are: (a) whether irreparable or serious
mischief will ensue to the plaintiff; (b) whether the
refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater
injustice than the grant of it would involve; (c) the court
will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 196 of 211



notice of the act complained so that the making of
improper order against a party in his absence is
prevented; (d) the court will consider whether the
plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such
circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction; (e)
the court would expect a party applying for ex parte
injunction to show utmost good faith in making the
application. (f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction
would be for a limited period of time. (g) General
principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience
and irreparable loss would also be considered by the
court.‖

could not be sustained. In the instant case before this Court, the
petitioner is present against the impugned order of the Appellate Court
of the learned ASCJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi which
appeals were filed against the ad-interim injunction ex-parte order and
a subsequent ad-interim order of the ACJ-CCJ-ARC(E), Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi after completion of pleadings between the parties.
170. The facts of the case in Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd.
and ors and Forum for Media and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B.
Corp. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) thus are not in pari materia with the
facts and circumstances put forth before this Court.
171. It is essential to observe that vide the order of Hon‘ble Division
bench in Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and Forum
for Media and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and Ors.
(supra) , the observations in para 21 thereof spell out categorically as
already dealt with in the present judgment of this Court highlight the
necessity of the Court to balance the rights of freedom of speech and
expression and of the right to reputation rather than to dilute them.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 197 of 211



The verdict of the Hon‘ble Division bench referred to hereinabove,
vide paragraph 23 thereof inter alia observes to the effect ―Unless it is
demonstrated at the threshold that the offending content is malicious
or palpably false, an injunction and that too an ex-parte one, without
recording any reasons should not be given.
172. It is essential to observe that in the instant case, the aspect of
the CBI closure report dated 13.02.2015 and the untraced report in
relation to the sensationalization of the disappearance of Shankar Dev
Ji and the murder of the Swami Yogananda were in existence prior to
the publication of the BOOK in 2017 in the instant case.
173. This Court has taken into account also the BOOK reviews that
have been uploaded on the electronic media prior to the grant of the
ex-parte interim injunction dated 04.08.2017 by the learned ACJ-CCJ-
ARC(E), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and those that came on to the
electronic media even during the pendency of the restraint.
174. The pleadings of the parties and contentions raised on behalf of
either side are before this Court unlike the facts in which the
impugned order in Pushp Sharma Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. and ors and
Forum for Media and Literature and Anr. Vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd.
and Ors. (supra) were assailed.
175. Furthermore in the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner in as much as
irreparable loss would be caused to him and is continuously being
caused if some portions of the BOOK continue to be in operation as is
also brought forth in the impugned order of the ASCJ (East).
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 198 of 211



176. Furthermore it is essential to observe as laid down by the
Hon‘ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India
(2017) 10 SCC which reads to the effect : -
―61. It is submitted that the court should adopt a cautious
approach in recognizing a particular privacy claim as implicit
in Article 21. The right to privacy is a jurisprudential realm
where globally the courts are still groping amidst confusion to
ascertain the extent of privacy concerns which should be
recognized as a constitutional right. Many a times, the court
has proceeded on an assumption that a claimed right is a
fundamental right under the Constitution. It is noted in Gobind
Vs. State of MP (Mr. Shaym Divan‘s Compilation pg 123) that
the US SC recognizes that ―a right of personal privacy, or a
guarantee of certain areas of zones of privacy does exist under
the Constitution. (Pr. 19). In para 20 they observed that the
framers of our Constitution ―must have deemed to have
conferred upon an individual as against the Government a
sphere he should be let alone. Yet, in para 23 they observe
against a broad definition of privacy as such a right was not
explicit in the Constitution. Thus, the court was against a
general recognition of a right to privacy. Further, the court in
paras 22 and 23 has stressed, as the only suggestion that the
―unifying principle underlying the concept has been the
assertion that a claimed right must be a fundamental right
implicit in the concept of ordered liberty‖. They recommend in
para 28 that the right to privacy will have to undergo case-by-
case development. Yet again, in para 23, the court has
emphsised that ―privacy interest in autonomy must also be
placed in the context of other rights and values‖ (also in the
context of right to life and personal liberty of others as ‗X‘ v.
Hospital ‗Z‘.‖

177. Thus the right to privacy which includes within it, the right to
reputation has to undergo a case by case development and privacy
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 199 of 211



interest in autonomy (which would include the right to reputation)
must also be placed in the context of other rights and values.
178. Thus in the circumstances, it is essential to observe that the
impugned order too reflects the injury caused to the petitioner by
publication and sale of the BOOK by the respondents. It is also
apparent as has been observed hereinabove that the petitioner is
revered and respected as a spiritual Yoga Guru and that the veracity or
otherwise of the contents of statements made in the BOOK is yet to
be established and as already held elsewhere hereinabove in relation
to the disappearance of Shankar Dev Ji and the murder of the Swami
Yogananda, no material evidence is indicated to have been collected
or is stated to be an existence against the petitioner by acceptance of
the closure report in relation to Swami Shanker Dev Ji and the
―Untrace Report‖ in relation to Swami‘s Yogananda murder as has
already been held elsewhere hereinabove and thus there appears no
belief of justification put forth by the respondents in relation to these
aspects to suffice to negate the grant of the prayer of the petitioner
seeking restraint of the portions of the BOOK with insinuating
statements against the petitioner in relation thereto.
179. This is so in as much as though it is sought to be contended on
behalf of the respondents that what is sought to be put forth through
these paragraphs and chapters adverted to hereinabove is justifiable as
„fair comment‟ , it is essential to observe that in order to be justifiable
as fair comment, it must appear as a comment and must not be so
mixed up with the facts that the reader cannot distinguish between
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 200 of 211



what is reported and what is comment and a comment must not
convey imputations of disreputable motive unless adequately
supported with evidence.
CONCLUSION
180. Thus as the petitioner about whom the BOOK is written about
is living human being and thus entitled to be treated with dignity and
has a right of social reputation as an ordinary citizen even if he be a
public figure, and as reputation is a cherished value and an element of
personal security, portions of the BOOK which make readers think
that he is an ambitious villain, until so proved in the Court of Law are
necessarily to be restrained from being published and distributed for
sale till disposal of the suit bearing no. 619/2017 pending before the
learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC(E), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. This is so as
the right to reputation of a living individual under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India cannot be sacrificed and crucified at the altar of
the right to freedom of speech and expression of another and both
have to be harmonized and balanced in as much as no amount of
damages can redeem the damage to reputation of any person and
merely because there have been previous publications on the same
issue, the same does not permit any repetitions of prima facie
defamatory insinuations against him.
181. In view thereof, all the respondents in C.M.(M) 556/18 &

C.M.(M) 557/18 are restrained from publishing, distributing and
selling the BOOK i.e. “Godman to Tycoon” The Untold Story of
Baba Ramdev, ISBN No. 9789386228383 in any manner,- until they
delete the following : -
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 201 of 211



(a) At Pages 69 to 70, Chapter 9 Mystery 1 : The
Ally‟s Murder (Entire Chapter 9).

"A day after the Asian tsunami swept up the shorelines
of fourteen countries', killing nearly a quarter of a million
people, an intriguing event occurred in Kankhal. In the
darkening winter evening of 27 December 2004, a scuffle
broke out in the single-storey Yogananda Ashram, home to
Swami Yogananda, the man whose licence had enabled Divya
Pharmacy to function and grow for eight years since its
inception in 1995 till 2003.

Yogananda's neighbours are cagey about discussing it
even today but they say they heard raised voices coming from
his house that eventful evening. No one imagined, though,,
that Yogananda — the lonely man who lived without a
telephone or even electricity — was being knifed to death. One
Vasant Kumar Singh discovered his lifeless body shortly after
and called the police. Along his lifeless body shortly after and
called the police. Along with other neighbours, the young
Tarun Kumar went in with the police. 'I remember it still. He
was there in that dark room when I went in … • lying in a
pool of his own blood.
As mentioned earlier, in 2003 Divya Pharmacy had
abruptly changed the vaidya on its registration from Swami
Yogananda to Sri Saty Pal Singh, Yogananda is said to have
had a falling out with Ramdev‘s increasingly powerful
enterprise but the reasons for this are still unknown.
With Yogananda‘s death, a key associate who had
provided critical help to Ramdev in his early days was gone.
The murder remains unsolved till date. Ten months later, on
25 October 2005, investigating officer B.B. Juyal filed his
final report in the case - Case unsolved.
Perpetrators unknown."

(b) At Page 105 to 114, Chapter 16 Mystery 2 : The
Guru‟s Disappearance (Entire Chapter 16).

CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 202 of 211



" A year after Ramdev had a successful run in the
United Kingdom and delivered a speech at the United
Nations in New York came plans for a yoga tour of the
United States. India's foremost yoga guru was scheduled to
start his tour in New York on 30 June 2007 and wind it up
in Coventry in the UK on 8 August, rumbling through New
Jersey, Chicago, Glasgow and London in between.
Animesh Goenka, then president of Heritage India, a
small charitable organization that was involved with the
planning of Ramdev's tour, had told the media that the US
leg of the tour, estimated to cost $350,000, was to be
funded exclusively through charitable donations from
private individuals and corporations. The sale of tickets to
the yoga camps, priced between $100 and $500, was
expected to raise half a million dollars. This money,
Goenka had asserted, would be funnelled into research on
amla and developing a product for which a patent could he
sought.
While Ramdev prepared for his international tour,
Balkrishna was making certain critical and far-reaching
changes. On 18 May 2007, fifteen months after its
formation, Patanjali Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd dropped the word
'private' from its name. This was a critical move if the
company wanted to list itself on the stock market.
Patanjali's shareholding also changed around this time, as
would happen frequently over the years, with several of
Ramdev's key associates coming on board as shareholders,
albeit minor ones, at this point. As before, and as with
Vedic Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd, Ramdev's pliant and
trustworthy Balkrishna remained the largest shareholder
by far.
Notable among these new shareholders were Krishan
Kumar Pittie and Sarvan Poddar Pittie would eventually
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 203 of 211



play a major role in Ramdev's quest for media domination
and Poddar would buy a Scottish island, Little Cumbrae,
for GBP 2.1 million in September 2009 and donate it to
Patanjali Yogpeeth's UK trust.
Balkrishna also converted Vedic Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd
into a public limited company.
Kirit Mehta and his partners at Aastha were too busy
struggling to survive to notice the dramatic changes that
were taking place in Vedic Broadcasting's story. Had they
been a little more alert they would have sensed that
something wasn't quite sitting right. Ramdev was
preparing to take over Aastha.
But Ramdev himself missed something brewing in his
own backyard. Amid his heady successes, and hectic travel,
he failed to see that his guru Shankar Dev was ailing,
increasingly unhappy and isolated in his own home,
Kripalu Bagh Ashram. For instance, Shankar Dev, who
was the convener of the Divya Yog Mandir Trust, was not
on the boards of any of the new companies that were set up
by Ramdev.
But what Ramdev could not see, though it was in plain
sight, many in Haridwar saw. Several remember the swiftly
ageing Shankar Dev, ravaged by spinal tuberculosis,
becoming increasingly frail and forlorn. Spinal
tuberculosis causes the patient to cough blood, lose weight,
get night sweats and chills, and experience a loss of
appetite, fatigue and fever, and it can sometimes impair
mobility as a result of pain in the spine and damage to the
joints.
Like in many small towns, friendships and kinship
survive long years in Kankhal Sushant Mahendru‘s family,
friends of Shankar Dev, continued looking out for him
even after he stopped coming to their house when his old
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 204 of 211



friend died. 'I have seen him several times during those
months when he had TB, He was alone and ignored in a
little room in Kripalu Bagh Ashram…. cooking for
himself, washing his own clothes and utensils. The only
difference was that he took rickshaws to commute because
he could no longer cycle because of the TB. But even that
was difficult for him ….
These people [Ramdev and Balkrishna] had a Nissan
Terrano at the time, but not one person in Kankhal has
any memory of Shankar Dev sitting in any of their cars. He
was always on a cycle or in a rickshaw,' says Mahendru. \
The anguish of watching Shankar Dev deteriorate is
etched on Mahendru's face. From being the master of his
ashram, Shankar Dev was reduced to a sidestepped has-
been in Kripalu Bagh.
ShankarDev is still the subject of hushed conversations
in Kankhal today. Those who remember tell of his trials
and speak of his tribulations in lowered voices — no one
wants to cross the now all-powerful Ramdev. In a small
place like Kankhal, word can get around. They are right to
be worried. For instance, when I asked about Shankar
Dev's deteriorating standard of living Balkrishna became
positively belligerent and furious at me.
Ramdev's tour began successfully in New York when a
thousand people, mostly Indian Americans already
familiar with his yoga through Aastha USA, attended his
inaugural camp at Nassau Community College — some
from as far as California.
At the Garden State Exhibit Center in Somerset, New
Jersey, there was a groundswell of fan support — 3000
people attended. The state Senate and the General
Assembly passed a resolution that this Legislature honors
Swami Ramdev for his firm belief that good health is the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 205 of 211



birthright .of all human beings, and extends best wishes
for a successful yoga camp in the US'.
It was when Ramdev was in Chicago that news came
from Kankhal. On 14 July 2007, Shankar Dev
disappeared. Vanished without a trace. He left that
morning for his usual walk and simply did not return.
It may have been devastating news for Ramdev. Or
maybe it was just inconvenient timing. With the Chicago
schedule drawing to a close, Ramdev had to choose:
Should he go on'to London, where the House of Commons
planned to receive and honour him, or should he send his
regrets and rush back to Kankhal to lead the search for his
missing guru?
Usually once a disciple takes deeksha, or initiation into
the sacred, from his guru, he establishes a bond with him.
Ramdev had not just taken deeksha from Shankar Dev but
also accepted saffron robes from him — that is, he
renounced the world. From the moment he took the
saffron robes from Shankar Dev, that gurushishya
relationship was meant to become the central fulcrum of
his life. From that moment onward, Ramdev was supposed
to consider his guru as his spiritual and temporal father
and mother.
There is no way of knowing what Ramdev truly felt
when he heard of the disappearance or if he struggled with
the decision or for how long, but in the end he decided to
carry on with his tour. The day after his aides filed a
missing person's report at Kankhal pohce station, on 18
July 2007, Ramdev attended a ceremony at the British
House of Commons in his honour.
An investigation began in India, but clues were scarce.
A cryptic note was found in Shankar Dev's room: ‗I have
taken some loan from you for this trust but I cannot repay
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 206 of 211



it. Please forgive me. I am leaving.' He was seventy-seven
years old.
The note raised more questions than it answered:
Exactly how much did this old man who continued to live
as simply as before Ramdev's meteoric rise borrow that he
could not repay the sum? Why did he borrow it? When had
he taken the loan? And from whom? More importantly -
why did Ramdev, sitting atop an empire worth at least Rs
100 crore, not repay the loan on his behalf? Why did
Shankar Dev not ask him for help? Or had he?
Even though Karamveer had left the organization,
Shankar Dev, who missed him dearly, often called him -
sometimes for financial help. ‗I used to send whatever little
I could so he could get by,' says Karamveer. Vipin
Pradhan, a former aide and Karamveer's nephew, says,
'By then, the trust was being run by ... relatives of Ramdev
who had come in from outside and had no intention, of
serving any interest other than their own. They treated
Shankar Dev badly and he was very unhappy.''
Kararhveer says that once when he was visiting
Haridwar and staying with an old friend in Tripura
Ashram, 'Shankar Dev came to meet me. They had sent
two people after him to do his CID {that is, to spy on him].
They waited at the gates while we met. I'm not sure why...
they [Ramdev and Balkrishna] had doubts [about Shankar
Dev] in their minds at the time... who knows what doubt…
what they were thinking at the time. It must have been a
very difficult situation for Shankar Dev.'
But it is Radhika Nagrath's appraisal of the situation
that is most damning. Remember, Nagrath is the one who
designed Divya Pharmacy's website in its early days. She is
still associated with Patanjali and has an obvious soft spot
for Ramdev, whom she speaks of with affection, though
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 207 of 211



she is unhesitatingly honest. She says, 'Shankar Dev was a
real saint - a very gentle guy. He felt ousted in his own
home. He did not get any compassion because these people
were in a race for something else. It was once his home,
his shelter. He used to sign all the expense cheques for the
trust at first [but] now the authority was taken away from
him and he was not happy with the way things had shaped
out. He had given these people shelter and now they had
no time for him ... they had no use for an old man any
more.'
An uneasy silence always follows questions about
Shankar Dev among Kankhal residents. People always ask,
'Can I trust you? Are you writing for him or against him?
You see, Ramdev has become too powerful. And look what-
happened to his guru ...'
After his pit stop at the House of Commons, Ramdev
continued his tour, travelling to Glasgow then back to
London, and finally ending his tour in Coventry on 8
August 2007. When he returned to India, more than three
weeks had passed since Shankar Dev's disappearance. To
outside observers it seemed as though Ramdev was too
busy chasing fame and fortune, making them wonder: did
he even care?
After his return, Ramdev summoned a press
connference in Haridwar, remembers the Jansatta reporter
and Haridwar resident Sunil Pandey. At the press
conference he was saying how Shankar Dev was like a
father to him and how sad it was ... I asked him that if he
really was like a father to him, why –didn‘t he come back?
―I was in the US, conducting camps, answered Ramdev.
‗Well, if a family member disappeared, one would come
back, isn‘t it?‘ Pandey pressed Ramdev.
‗If I knew he was alive, I would have,‘ replied Ramdev.
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 208 of 211



'So you are admitting that you know that he is dead?‘
demanded Pandey.
That was the suspicion in everyone's minds.
Stunned, realizing he had misspoken, Ramdev fell
silent.
‗Then his people just took over and changed the
subject. Though a lot of people were present at the press
conference,' recalls Pandey.
Little of this murky business was reported in the
national media at that time. Across the country, Ramdev's
star was ascendant.
It was only in October 2012, five years after Shankar
Dev's disappearance, that the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBl), India's apex investigative agency,
initiated a probe to find him. In his inimitable style,
Ramdev welcomed the investigation on the one hand, but
also attacked the CBI and the government, accusing them
of a politically motivated conspiracy to frame him m the
case. Given the sour relationship between Ramdev and the
Union government at that time, his allegation did have
some credence.
Whatever the CBI's initial motivations, it was widely
reported- that it initiated a move to close the case in
December 2014 - by this time the Narendra Modi-led
government had taken charge at the-Centre – because the
agency had failed to make any headway. The special BJ
magistrate in Dehradun set the date for the next hearing as
12 January 2015 but this is where the public case file goes
cold.
It‘s hard to ascertain what happened thereafter. While a
right to information (RTI) request I filed with the CBI in
Delhi met with the response that the CBI was not covered
by the RTI, another filed in Dehradun met with the
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 209 of 211



response that the CBI does not answer questions on open
cases. Ergo, the case is still open.‖

(c) At Page 201 Chapter 25 : Conclusion

"A trail of people whose goodwill or frailties he used to
further his own enrichment and pursue his own agenda,
people who were left by the wayside after they had served
their purpose. A trail of people who either vanished into
thin air, or died mysterious deaths, or live on in utter fear
of him. A trail of decisions and political machinations
driven not by the principles he espouses but by
expediency."

(d)
At Page 202 Chapter 25 : Conclusion

"Finally, a trail of shirked responsibility. For every
negative event surrounding him, he has consistently
yelled foul, always choosing to lay the blame at someone
else's door."
…
…
…
"All Ramdev's former allies, aides, supporters and
mentors who had watched him rise but has fallen by the
wayside at some point seemed to have been waiting for a
call like mine, from anyone at all, asking them about
their time with Ramdev."

182. As regards the submissions made in relation to other portions of
the BOOK as detailed in the petition, the same prima facie fall within
the domain of thought provocation and debate and criticism and the
prayers in relation thereto cannot presently be accepted.
183. The petitioners C.M.(M) 556/18 & C.M.(M) 557/18 are
disposed of accordingly and all interim orders made in the suit bearing
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 210 of 211



no. 619/2017 pending before the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC(E),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and in MCA No.8/2017 and in MCA
No.10/2017 disposed of by the ASCJ (East) and by this Court in
CM(M) 556/18 and CM(M) 557/18 are modified accordingly.
184. Nothing stated hereinabove shall however amount to any
expression on the merits or demerits of the Civil Suit No. 619/2017
pending before the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC(E), Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi.

185. Vide paragraph 18 of the suit bearing no. 619/2017 as valued,
the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is valued at Rs.39/- with reliefs
as rightly held vide the impugned orders dated 28.4.2018 of the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, East District in MCA
No.10/2017 and in MCA No.8/2017 having necessarily to be valued
qua each relief sought with appropriate court fees being paid on the
same and the same be done by the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff
before the Trial Court within a period of 15 days of the date of this
order.
186. The Trial Court Records be returned.

ANU MALHOTRA, J
th
SEPTEMBER 29 , 2018
SV/MK/VM/NC
CM(M) 556/2018 & 557/2018 Page 211 of 211