Actionable defamation

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the defendants published fake, fabricated news and levelled allegations with intention to humiliate him

Plaintiff had not annexed with the appeal the news items which were allegedly published in the newspaper

Perusal of alleged defamatory news items disclosed in plaint transpired that no defamatory words/news items were directly attributed to any person by name which was one of the necessary ingredients constituting defamation

Plaintiff had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in the Trial Court to prove/substantiate his claim

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

In order to constitute defamation in a suit under Defamation Ordinance, 2002; allegations levelled against a plaintiff should be false, baseless and unfounded; the wording used and allegation levelled against a plaintiff should on the face of it be defamatory and derogatory in nature, and such allegations should have been published in widely circulated newspapers or spoken in large gathering and said publications made or wording used should have been with malice without any reasonable excuse and justification and such allegations should have been directly attributed to plaintiff by specifically mentioning his/her name

In cases of defamation, falsehood was presumed on part of the defendant unless proved that the published/broadcasted materials were true and plaintiff could only be burdened to prove malice in case defendant succeeded in proving that defamatory words were true and privileged otherwise court shall presume that defamatory materials published or broadcast were false and male fide existed on part of the defendant

Article 19 of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech but it also imposed certain restrictions and limitations and did not provide licence to any person to make personal attempt on an individual to disgrace his/her dignity and reputation

Print and electronic media were in no way vested with unfettered liberty and impunity to public and telecast any material which was prejudicial to interest of any person or harmed or caused damage to a reputation, honour, prestige of a person

Author or broadcasting agency were not free to telecast anything for promotion of a company or corporation or on instruction of some quarter or according to its desires but their freedom was subject to a moral code of conduct and such reasonable restrictions as may be legitimately imposed under law in public interest and glory of Islam

When an untrue statement or scene was broadcast, and added to an evil act of person, the law of defamation would plunge into the rescue of such a person.