What the Delhi High Court said about The Wire article on Delhi Chief Secretary

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday severely criticised online news portal The Wire for its story on Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar concerning land acquisition by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)..Justice Sachin Datta said that the article is a “litany of misrepresentations and convoluted insinuations made in a reckless manner, without any regard for the truth, and with a view to inflict damage” Kumar’s reputation.The Court said that while freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct, the reputation of a person earned over several decades cannot be sacrificed at the altar of such freedom.It noted that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that Kumar interfered with the quasi-judicial function of the concerned District Magistrate and yet the article seeks to castigate Kumar as to how he “may have handled the matter”.“The article/defamatory publication further proceeds to suggest that plaintiff has a potential “conflict of interest in the matter”. Again, this insinuation is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as enhancement of compensation was an outcome of arbitration proceedings, in which the plaintiff was clearly not involved.”.The Court made the observation while dealing with a defamation case filed by Kumar against The Wire and reporter Meetu Jain.The report by The Wire said that Kumar's son Karan Chauhan had links with a family which benefitted from the hiked compensation when a plot of land measuring 19 acre in Delhi's Bamnoli village was acquired by the NHAI for the Dwarka Expressway.Justice Datta ordered The Wire and Jain to take down the article as well as Twitter posts related to the story..The Court dealt with the allegations made in the story in detail and observed that contrary to what has been suggested in the article, the matter concerning the proposed transfer of the DM in question was placed before the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA).“Further, the nexus sought to be drawn between the person which was the beneficiary of the arbitral award dated 15.05.2023 and the son of the plaintiff is also quite far-fetched, to say the least, contrary to what has been sought to be projected in the title/caption of the impugned article.”.The Court also took note of the “crescendo of politically motivated tweets/posts/comments, virtually in sync with the publication” of the story on November 9.“One such tweet is by the author of the “preliminary report” [Vigilance Minister Atishi] sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 [The Wire and Meetu Jain]. The said report, which is dated 14.11.2023, ex-facie, cannot afford any justification for the impugned article dated 09.11.2023,” the Court stated. .Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Rajshekhar Rao along with advocates Bani Dikshit, Uddhav Khanna, Krishan Kumar, Rohan Jaitley, Arkraj Kumar, Rishab Aggarwal, Tanya Aggarwal, Ashita Chawla and Ajay Sabharwal appeared for Naresh Kumar.Advocate Sarim Naved and Harsh Kumar appeared for The Wire and Meetu Jain.Advocates Neel Mason, Vihan Dang, Aditi Umapathy and Pragya Jain appeared for Google..[Read Judgement]