Morung Express News
Dimapur | February 7
In a civil suit, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior) Division, Dimapur has passed an ‘order’ asking 24X7 English news channel ‘Times Now’ to pay an amount of one crore rupees “by way of damages” in favour of the plaintiff, Imkongnukshi Imchen.
In the view of the ‘judgment and order’, the Judge decreed that the one crore rupees be paid along with costs of Rs. 50,000. If the news channel defaults on paying the amount, “the decretal amount will carry an interest of 10% till the full realisation of the decretal amount,” noted the Decree. The judgment, order and decree were passed on December 8, 2015.
The suit was filed after the news channel flashed the picture of one Imkongnukshi Imchen repeatedly on June 30, 2010, “encircled in red and purportedly showing him” as then Home Minister of Nagaland, Imkong Imchen, who was “detained at an airport in Nepal for allegedly carrying Indian currency notes of a particular denomination which is restricted in Nepal,” noted the judgment. The news item, it informed, was “repeatedly flashed from morning till the afternoon” of the day with the wrong picture to go with.
Due care and caution to authenticate information
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Inalo Zhimomi NJS, observed in his judgment that in an era of “cut-throat competition” between 24 hours news channels, “there is a tendency to sensationalise the news items” and claim that each was the first to cover it “so as to increase its viewership.”
The Judge further observed that “in the present age of Internet and various social media, one has to be extra cautious since every news channel uploads its top stories on the internet and reporting of sensational story spreads faster than wild fire.”
With the advancement of technology, news media have the responsibility to check into their databases to authenticate photographs before broadcasting.
On the argument from the ‘Times Now’ in court that this was a “human error” in flashing the picture as the Home Minister of Nagaland, the Judge noted that there was no material on record to “substantiate how the human error” occurred.
“There is nothing on record to show that the defendant had taken due care and caution to eliminate error...” The Judge then observed that in the absence of this, it cannot be said that the channel took “due steps” to “ascertain and verify” the authenticity of the photograph they projected, which is “incumbent” on the part of the news agency.
This corrigendum is not an apology
On August 18, 2010, Imkongnukshi Imchen issued a notice to the news channel asking it to offer an “unconditional apology through the medium of the news channel and print media, both National and State.”
The channel sent an apology letter to Imchen—which the court found “immaterial” and observed that till date, “no apology as demanded by the plaintiff has been tendered by the defendant.”
The channel also published a corrigendum in ‘Times of India’ on September 3, 2010 and ‘Nagaland Post’ on September 4, 2010. The same was telecast on the news channel on September 1, 2010. The corrigendum expressed ‘regret’ for the “incorrect usage” of his picture. In all the corrigenda, however, his name was incorrectly published as “Mr. Imkongukshi Imchen.”
The corrigendum, noted the Judge, “cannot be said to be an apology by any stretch of imagination.” It said, the meaning of ‘corrigendum’ is “an error to be corrected,” whereas, an apology is the “regretful acknowledgment of offence or failure; an explanation.” The Judge asserted that this particular corrigendum “lacks any explanation as to how, when, and where” the picture was used.
Intent not necessary for defamation
Putting the case through a three-point defamation test, the Court at Dimapur asserted that “the intention to defame is not necessary.”
“If the defendant had no malafide intention and ulterior motive, then one can question the defendant as to why they had not offered and/or tendered any immediate apology to the plaintiff the moment they realised their mistake. No such step was taken by the defendant and no explanation given for the same,” stated the judgment.
However, bringing down the claimed damage amount by Imkongnukshi Imchen, that is Rs. Two crore, Thirty lakh and Fifty thousand, to Rs. One crore, the Court maintained that in defamation cases, “not only is it impossible to ascertain how far other peoples mind has been affected, it is almost impossible to equate the damage to a sum of money.”
