1999 PLP 1260 (YLR)

" Security ‑Printing Clarification: The Pakistan Security Printing Corporation has contradicted the report regarding disappearance of foreign currency notes as published in 'DAWN', issue of November, 20, 1983. According to a notice sent to DAWN through the Legal Adviser of the Corporation no printing of foreign currency notes has been undertaken by the Corporation for the last several years and as such the question of theft does not arise. Consequently, there could be no question of an enquiry either." The story was published in good faith and without any intent to harm the reputation of the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or its officers and employees." It is the contention of the plaintiff that since the plaintiff had ceased printing any Currency notes for foreign Islamic Countries there was obviously no truth in the news items. They also state that due to publication of this news item their reputation has been greatly tarnished and the plaintiff corporation has been defamed and thereby has suffered great losses in view of the fact that most of the work that used to come to them would now go to their competitors abroad. They further state that the clarification that was published by the newspapers cannot be regarded as a contradiction of the news items since it was produced as a statement of plaintiff's legal adviser. The plaintiff therefore, claim damages from each of the defendants in the above suits of an amount of Rs.10,00,00,000 (Rupees ten Crore). On the other hand the defendants in all the suits state that they had lifted this news item from the one published in daily "DAWN" and that it was not a report that was published after any investigation on their part. Besides, they claim that since they had published clarification in their newspapers prominently the effect of the publication of the earlier story would be rendered ineffective. However, some newspapers have taken the position that it was fair comment and that they had done this in the interest of public at large to expose misdemeanors of an important Government Organization. They therefore, say that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages. Based on the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed in each suits. However, for purpose of decision of these suits I am of the view that only following issues are relevant. (1) Whether the said news item published in the relevant newspapers is defamatory libellous to the plaintiff? (2) What damages if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? (3) What should the decree be? The plaintiff examined two witnesses both being their officials and the defendants examined one witness each in all suits. The gist of the evidence brought on record is substantially the same as the contents of the plaint. There is no denial of the facts as stated in the plaint. However, what has been clearly brought on record by P.W.2 is that the plaintiffs at the relevant time had ceased printing Currency Notes for the foreign Islamic countries. My findings with respect issues are as under. ISSUE No. 1 It is an admitted position that the offending news item was indeed published. The only variation so far as some of the above suits are concerned is that almost all newspapers have lifted the story from Dawn newspaper and that it is not a piece of investigative reporting by individual news paper. It is also an admitted position that the clarification by the plaintiff was published in all newspapers but the only objection that the plaintiffs have is that this was published as statement of an official of the plaintiff and not as a news item by the news papers. The question that now arises is whether this news item that was initially published was libellous to the plaintiff or not and if it was whether the publication of the statement of the plaintiffs' official could wash of the libel. So far as the publication of the news item is concerned on the face of it, it is libellous in as much as it would effect the business of the plaintiffs. The question whether a Corporation can maintain an action for libel is not free of ambiguity. It is obvious that defamation and libel entails mortification and gives rise to a feeling of hurt in the person effected. Such mortification and feeling of hurt can obviously not be felt by an unnatural person such as a Corporation and hence the argument would be that a corporation should not be able to maintain an action for libel or defamation. But by now it is well‑established that while the Corporation can not maintain an action for any libellous allegations as against any one of its members it can certainly maintain an action if the libellous statement affects Corporation's business. In this particular case the plaintiff's have brought on record that they are one of the few Corporations which are involved in the business of printing of currency and other valuable documents on behalf of the Government in this region. It is also brought on record that they have been rendering services iit this regard to a number of Islamic countries though at the relevant time such services were not being rendered. There is also evidence to the effect that there are only two competitors of this Corporation one in Germany and one in England. The question that arises is whether the publication of such news items which is obviously defamatory in nature would bring into question the integrity of the corporation and would effect its business with regard to other Islamic countries and whether it would be to the advantage of the competitors of the plaintiffs. There is no doubt that printing of currency notes is a very sensitive matter requiring utmost confidence and if there is even the slightest irregularity it is obvious that the Government which may be intending to enter into a contract for printing of currency notes would refrain from doing so. Need it be said that if they do so refrain then it would be to the advantage of the competitors of the plaintiffs. Consequently there is no doubt that the publication of the said news item has indeed effected the business of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to maintain a claim of libel against the defendants in all the above suits. Now the publication of the statement of the plaintiffs official contradicting the news item was in itself very comprehensive but its publication as a statement of the plaintiff official would constitute a mere denial of the news item by the plaintiff and not an admission of an error by the defendants in publishing the offending and incorrect news item. Would such denial then eradicate the effects of the publication? I think not. Doubts would still lurk in the minds of the prospective clients of the plaintiffs that perhaps there was some‑thing amiss with the plaintiff corporation and the denial by the corporation was entirely a reaction to such news item and it may well be an attempt to conceal the truth. Under the circumstances, I feel that the only thing which can vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff corporation would have been a corrigendum published in the newspaper as a news item itself whereby newspaper could have accepted that they were in error in publishing the news item. This of course would not have been difficult inasmuch as the plaintiff corporation had clearly explained that in fact they had not dealt with Muslim countries in the last few years hence there was no question of disappearance of any of currency notes of the said Islamic countries due to negligence/corruption of officials of plaintiff. I do feel that in avoiding to publish such corrigendum the newspapers have created a false impression to the effect and perhaps all is not well with plaintiff corporation. To that extent I believe the publication of the news item by the newspaper was libellous. Need it be said that Press to‑day is an important arm of a democratic State and has come to be called "Fourth Estate". Before discussing role of the press further it may be useful to show how the Press came to be called the Fourth Estate. In May 1789, Louis XVI of France summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estates General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred nobles. The Second Estate, three hundred clergy. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, in England said, "Yonder site the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all" The ability of the press to expose corruption malfeasance and misfeasance of the public officials is a great deterrent and leads to prevention of excesses by the Government officials in a democratic polity. Nevertheless, it is always possible for the press to exceed its limits and publish items for mala fide motives or for gains for their newspapers or for giving advantage to any particular person. But this would be against the objective for which the Fourth Estate had come into existence. The press, therefore, must restrain itself from publishing news items that are not based on truth. Proper investigation is, therefore, necessary before controversial news items are published. But this is not to say that the freedom of the press ought to be curbed in any way because it is now well‑known and accepted that curbs on freedom of speech are always counter productive inasmuch as these are normally introduced ostensibly for the benefit of the State or individuals but obfuscation of the society that results far outweighs the benefits. A balance, therefore, has to be struck between the freedom of press and the preservation of the reputation of an individual. In so far, as this particular case is concerned there is no doubt that if the incident that was initially reported in the papers had indeed occurred then publication of that news item was certainly in public interest because one would not like an organization like plaintiff Corporation to indulge in any misdemeanor as indicated in the initial news item. Some newspapers have taken the defence of fair comment. Fair comment is indeed may be when published but did not remain so when the newspaper did realize that they had published an incorrect news. What then is the answer to this question? How is one to balance the right of freedom of the press to have published the said news item in interest of the people‑at- large on the one hand and the reputation of the corporation on the other? To my mind it is clear that the first news item was indeed libellous but the newspaper have made amends, to an extent, by publishing the statement of the plaintiff official, but only to an extent, because they were indeed required to do a little more by publishing a corrigendum which they have failed to do. ISSUE No.2. In view of the fact that under Issue No.1 I have held that the publication of the official news item was libellous and also that action taken by the newspapers did not go to the extent that it should have, I feel that the plaintiffs are indeed entitled to damages but only to token damages. The result of the above discussion is that I decree all these suits and award token damage of Re.l to the plaintiffs against each of the defendants in all the above suits. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./P‑76/K Suit decreed.