Delhi: Army officer was accused of taking bribe 22 years ago, now Tehelka will have to pay two crore compensation – Two Crore Compensation On Tehelka In A Bribery Case

Delhi: Army officer was accused of taking bribe 22 years ago, now Tehelka will have to pay two crore compensation – Two Crore Compensation On Tehelka In A Bribery Case



delhi high court
Photo: ANI

Expansion


The Delhi High Court has ordered news portal Tehelka, its owner Tarun Tejpal and two journalists to pay Rs 2 crore as damages to Major General MS Ahluwalia for defamation. The court said, the portal had accused him of taking a bribe of Rs 50,000 for defense purchases in 2001, which destroyed his reputation. There cannot be a more open and clear case of defamation of an honest officer than this. The publishers are apologizing for this today, after 23 years, which is not only inadequate, but also meaningless.

Justice Nina Bansal Krishna said that the reputation of the petitioner has not only diminished among the public, but the manner in which his character has been tarnished by serious allegations of corruption can never be compensated. For this, Tehelka.com, its proprietary company M/s Buffalo Communications, its owner Tarun Tejpal and two journalists Anirudh Behl and Mathew Samuel will pay a compensation of two crores. While giving relief to the other accused in the case, Zee Telefilm and its officials, the court said that they had aired the relevant news under an agreement with the news portal.

also commented

Quoting the words of Abraham Lincoln, the Court said, “Truth is the best deterrent against false accusations, but even truth cannot restore lost prestige in the eyes of a judgmental society.”

investigation into allegations

The court said that because of the allegations, the army has started a court of inquiry against the officer. While it admitted that he had not committed any misconduct, it also expressed ‘serious displeasure’ against him. At the same time, the comments that journalist Anirudh Behl added to the report were false and defamatory. All this against an officer who, despite all the efforts of the defence, never accepted the bribe.



Source link

Related posts

Leave a Reply