In a bid to reach a friendly settlement, the Delhi High Court has referred a defamation case filed by Anjana Om Kashyap and Khan Sir for mediation.
In a bid to reach a friendly settlement, the Delhi High Court has referred a defamation case filed by Anjana Om Kashyap and Khan Sir for mediation. A major development in the defamation case between journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and educator Khan Sir, which has gained significance in recent times, the Delhi High Court has referred the case for mediation. The ruling reflects a trend in the courts to settle matters that involve harm to an individual’s reputation by consent over extended adversarial actions.
A dispute reportedly stemmed from comments said during a TV show and on social media that were alleged to have damaged the reputation of one of the parties. The complaint led to legal action in the Delhi High Court for redressal of the damages allegedly suffered by them. Rather than immediately moving forward with a contested adjudication, the Court believed mediation was an appropriate process to discuss a resolution that both parties could agree upon. The reference to mediation is sufficiently important as it is a legal process that defamation cases may come to include questions of personal reputation, apology, clarification, correction, and future behavior. Whereas conflicts between businesses often can be settled with monetary compensation, conflicts involving reputation may be better handled through a discussion and negotiated settlement.
In India, the right to reputation has been recognised as a part of the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined in article 21 of the Indian constitution. Meanwhile, Article 19(1)(a) of the 2007 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, including for defamation. Therefore, balancing an individual’s right to freedom of speech and his or her right to privacy, or reputation, often becomes an issue within the court.
The law on criminal defamation is laid out in Sections 356 to 359 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, instead of the previous Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These provisions punish entities that publish information intended or known to cause ‘damage to another person’s reputation’, but also include a number of statutory exceptions for fair criticism, statements of truth for public good, judicial proceedings and fair comment on matters of public interest.
On a procedural level, the Court’s ruling dovetails into the increased focus on mediation in the Mediation Act, 2023, which aims to “institutionalise mediation as an efficient method of dispute resolution”. The Act promotes self-resolution of disputes by using an independent mediator to help parties settle their disputes without the need for judicial intervention, thereby liberating the judicial workload and maintaining relations between parties as far as possible. Mediation is still an option in a lot of conflict areas, but courts have been telling parties that they should consider negotiating a settlement before going through a long trial.
The Supreme Court has encouraged mediation as a means of settling civil and commercial disputes time and again. The Court further said that mediation should be encouraged where the nature of a dispute allows for a friendly resolution in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010). Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court emphasized on the need to have faster means of solving disputes, such as Alternative Dispute Resolution, to minimize delays in the justice delivery system.
In the practical sense, there are a number of benefits to mediation in defamation cases. The parties can settle for an apology, withdrawal of a statement, publication of clarifications, or compensation, without the hassle and visibility of a long trial. Mediation proceedings are confidential, as per the Mediation Act, and the mediation process does not cause any additional damage to reputation which can be the result of an ongoing public court battle.
The mediation reference, however, should not be seen as a finding of the merits of the allegations. It does not create a prima facie case of defamation nor is it a defence to defamation. The intent is only to give a chance for the parties to reach a resolution by consensus. If mediation is unsuccessful, it is likely to be referred back to the High Court for determination on merits.
In fact, the Delhi High Court’s reasoning bears testimony to changing judicial attitudes to not all reputational claims need to be heard in court. The Court’s decision to promote mediation in a high-profile defamation case has helped to perpetuate the principle of providing more useful and timely justice through dialogue, apology, and negotiated resolution rather than through extended litigation. The case also illustrates the growing importance of mediation in the Indian legal framework, especially since the introduction of the Mediation Act, 2023, establishing mediation as a vital component of contemporary civil justice.
