๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฐ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ:
In a recent judgment, Justice Sardar Ijaz Khan of the Islamabad High Court directed the Jang Newspaper and Atta ul Haq Qasmi, a columnist who published libelous content in his column in 2008, to pay 1 million rupees inย total as damages to the appellant. The appellant in this case was Mr. Share Afgan who had formerly held the office of ambassador in Bangkok , capital of Thailand. A libelous content was published by the columnist in Jang Newspaper wherein the former ambassador was accused of corruption, which fact was never verified, nor proved correct.
The former ambassador filed a suit for damages against the newspaper and the columnist. The suit was dismissed on merits which decree was appealed against in the Islamabad High Court. The IHC dismissed the dismissal order by the trail court and awarded damages to the appellant for the following reasons.
The Court held that there is a stark difference between a ‘fair comment’ and ‘assertion of fact’ about someone. The former involves expressing an opinion inferred from circumstances and that opinion is expressed in good faith for a benefit. The latter, the assertion of fact, is not a comment. Rather, one asserts a fact regarding another and he must prove it. The assertion of fact can also be termed as leveling allegation against another.
The Court further held that qualified privilege has never been limited in the common law but our jurisdiction has limited its scope through section 7 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The codified law circumvents the uncodified law. A qualified privilege is one which arises from a special occasion which justifies the publication of a libelous statement in the public interest.
The Court then went on to explain what is malice in law and malice in fact, and when the burden of proof shifts from party to another. The Court held that when the case is about malice in law the burden lies on the defendant, not the plaintiff, to prove that the assertion of fact was justified. When the case is about malice in fact, the burden shifts on to the plaintiff to prove how the comment was illegal.
The Court also explains a seminal judgment on defamation by the Supreme Court and refers to judgments and articles on defamation from foreign jurisdictions.
This judgment will have far reaching consequences for damages suits.
RFA_48-2011_(Defamation)_Final_638602806858967899
