Bangalore Turf Club gets a slap from the court

 

By Sharan Kumar

 

The Bangalore Turf Club’s attempts to muzzle the Press have fallen flat on its face, with the court giving a strong order dismissing BTC’s application for a permanent injunction against Racingpulse and its Editor from writing articles highlighting its inadequacies and questionable actions of the powers-that-be. The BTC had obtained an exparte order of stay against Racingpulse from writing what they perceived as ``defamatory’’ articles against the club. The judge has dismissed their application in a detailed order which is like a slap on BTC and a reality check on the powers vested with the Managing Committee.

 

BTC was always highhanded in its actions and believed that it could take action even on the Press if they highlighted any lacunae in the administration of the sport. The BTC managing committee had a delusionary belief in its power and believed that its word was law and that nobody had any right to criticize it. The Committee tried to enforce their writ through intimidating actions including initiating suits which would put the defendant into hardship in terms of the expenses involved while the club could fight with the institutional money. The order as given by City Civil Judge Padma Prasad puts to rest the false beliefs that the committee members may have had in their powers and puts them in their place.

 

The Judge passed a strong order in favour of Racingpulse and its Editor Sharan Kumar while addressing the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour. 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the balance of convenience tilts in its favour? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that if a temporary injunction is not granted, it will be put to loss and hardship? 4. Whether the defendant made out sufficient grounds to vacate the exparte temporary injunction? 5. What order? The Judge said that the BTC pliant had no legs to stand on all counts and hence dismissed the IA and vacated the interim exparte stay.

 

The BTC had stated that the defendant was indulging in illegal and unethical activities and writing highly ``defamatory’’ articles and as such, the club denied entry to its premises to the defendant. The contention of the defendant was that he has reported the autocratic and whimsical ways of the managing committee and also reported the financial corruptions indulged in by the Managing Committee members etc., and accordingly claimed on IA1 and 3 .doc that he has not published any defamatory or derogatory articles against the plaintiff. Further case of the defendant is that he has every right to report the true facts as it is his profession and he is the leading publisher of news relating to horse races etc., Accordingly, the defendant also filed an application for vacation of exparte temporary injunction and prayed for dismissal of IA No.1. The Judge observed that the Plaintiff had not made out its case against defamatory articles cited as its defence.

 

The Judge has said it is also relevant to note that the plaintiff in the plaint para 11 pleaded that, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by its order had directed the appointment of a monitoring committee. As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, a monitoring committee had been constituted to ensure the uprightness of the club. What was the necessity for the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to appoint a monitoring committee is not properly explained by the plaintiff in the plaint. However, the said fact shows that everything is not right in the plaintiff club, otherwise, there is no necessity for the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to order the constitution of the monitoring committee.

 

Importantly the Judge has said that the bye-laws of the club do not apply to independent journalists. The plaintiff has produced the byelaws of the club. On perusal of various provisions, it is clear that the said bye-laws are applicable to its members and certainly it is not applicable to independent press reporters. This observation dismisses the BTC’s contention that they denied access to Racingpulse on the basis of its bye-laws and powers vested in them.

 

The Judge further said: Admittedly, defendant no.2 is an Editor of defendant no.1 and he is a journalist. The specific claim of the defendant in the written statement is that he is a leading reporter of racing events in India and he is covering frank and forthright writing of horse races and racing events. The defendant as an editor and journalist certainly has the right to report to the best of his knowledge and belief. Any such publication cannot be considered defamatory or derogatory unless and until the plaintiff makes out that the articles are defamatory or derogatory.

 

The particulars of the articles appear to be published by defendant no.2 on his website defendant no.1 as narrated in the plaint paragraph no.9 at this juncture shows that the defendant has reported the incidents relating to the plaintiff and other allegations/averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint to be proved during the course of a trial. Apart from that, there are some exceptions to the alleged defamation has been stated or given under Section 499 of IPC, particularly exceptions 1, 3 and 6 to Section 499 of IPC. The defendant is an editor/journalist and certainly comes under some of the exceptions stated under Section 499 of IPC. In view of these facts, the dismissal of the complaint filed by defendant no.2 before the Press Council cannot be considered/accepted that the defendant has used defendant no.1 for the acts claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 has published defamatory and derogatory articles is to be proved during the trial. Reputation is always subject to evidence and it cannot be inferred only by the averments made in the plaint particularly when the defendant specifically claimed that he has reported the true facts.

 

It is also claimed by the defendant that, Karnataka Trainers Association has filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.6539/2019, and that is still pending and the said fact is not disputed or denied by the plaintiff. If the said fact is accepted, then certainly there is a dispute in the organization of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, certainly, it cannot be accepted that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case to restrain the defendants from publishing articles.

 

The material on record as well as the name of defendant no.1 itself shows that the defendants are involved in reporting the racing events. Hence, certainly, he has to be permitted to publish news relating to racing events and the defendant is entitled to publish any articles within the ethics prescribed for journalism, and deliberate act of imputation of the reputation only to be restricted.

 

As discussed earlier, the article published by defendant no.2 on the defendant no.1 website as per the documents produced by the plaintiff along with documents if it is taken in its entirety, the prima facie does not prove the allegation made in the plaint and that requires trial. Therefore, for these reasons, this court is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case to restrain the defendant from publishing articles relating to horse racing. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.

 

When the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case, certainly balance of convenience will not tilt in its favour. Therefore, this point is answered in the negative. The plaintiff has also not made out any case to show that if a temporary injunction is not granted, it will put more loss and hardship. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative. As the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case as well as the balance of convenience and hardship, certainly the exparte temporary injunction issued against the defendant has to be vacated. Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.

 

The following order was passed by the Honourable Judge: IA No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC a   is hereby dismissed. Ø IA No.3 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is allowed. Accordingly, the exparte temporary injunction granted by this court dated 19/2/2022 is hereby vacated.