Table of Contents
Rustom K Karanjia v KMD Thackersey, AIR 1970 Bom. 424
In the case of Rustom K. Karanjia v. K. M. D. Thackersey, the plaintiff Rustom K. Karanjia was the editor of a weekly magazine called “Blitz” which was known for its investigative journalism and fearless reporting.
The defendant K. M. D. Thackersey was a Member of Parliament and the owner of a daily newspaper called “Free Press Journal”.
The case was related to an article published in Blitz which accused Thackersey of corruption and misuse of his position as a Member of Parliament. Thackersey filed a defamation suit against Karanjia in the Bombay High Court.
The main issue in the case was whether the article published in Blitz was defamatory or not. The Court held that the article was defamatory as it imputed that Thackersey was corrupt and misused his position for personal gain. The Court observed that the allegations made in the article were not supported by any evidence and were therefore baseless and untrue.
The Court also considered the defense of fair comment raised by Karanjia. However, the Court held that the defense of fair comment did not apply in this case as the article was not a fair comment but a statement of fact without any basis.
The Court further held that the publication of the article amounted to malice as there was no basis for the allegations made in the article. The Court, therefore, ordered Karanjia to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages to Thackersey.
In conclusion, the Court held that the article published in Blitz was defamatory and baseless, and that Karanjia was liable to pay damages to Thackersey. This case highlights the importance of responsible journalism and the need for journalists to verify their sources and ensure that their articles are based on facts rather than baseless allegations.
