Defamation — Television broadcast — Continuing tort Repeated telecast of allegedly defamatory programmes constitutes a continuing wrong — Each subsequent broadcast gives rise to a fresh cause of action — Subsequent suit maintainable notwithstanding earlier proceedings on distinct broadcasts. [Paras 26, 28, 30, 31]

advocatemmmohan

Defamation — Television broadcast — Continuing tort

Repeated telecast of allegedly defamatory programmes constitutes a continuing wrong — Each subsequent broadcast gives rise to a fresh cause of action — Subsequent suit maintainable notwithstanding earlier proceedings on distinct broadcasts.
[Paras 26, 28, 30, 31]

---

Civil Procedure — Suppression of facts — Clean hands doctrine

Litigant approaching Court for discretionary relief is required to disclose all relevant facts — Non-disclosure of prior proceedings, criminal complaints, or interim orders is improper — However, where no interim benefit has accrued, opportunity to amend plaint may be granted in the interest of justice.
[Paras 3–11, 32–33]

---

Multiple Suits — Same relief — Distinct cause of action

Reliefs claimed may appear similar, but maintainability depends on sameness of cause of action — Different programmes, different dates, and different factual foundations constitute distinct causes of action — Bar does not operate merely because relief clauses overlap.
[Paras 17–21, 27–30]

---

Defamation — Media trial — Presumption of guilt

Broadcasts giving impression that a person has been sentenced or adjudged guilty, when trial is pending, are in bad taste and prima facie defamatory — Failure to obtain version of the affected person aggravates the issue.
[Para 31]

---

Election-related broadcasts — Public interest vs reputation

Even under the guise of public interest or political reporting, media cannot pronounce guilt or prejudice pending judicial proceedings — Balance between freedom of speech and right to reputation must be maintained.
[Paras 22, 31]

---

Pleadings — Amendment — Opportunity

Where plaint suffers from omission of relevant background facts, Court may permit amendment or fresh filing instead of outright rejection, particularly at pre-summons stage.
[Paras 32–34]

---

II. ANALYSIS OF LAW

A. Continuing Tort in Defamation

The Court reiterates the settled principle that defamation by repeated publication is a continuing tort. Each telecast constitutes an independent wrong, giving rise to a fresh cause of action and a fresh period of limitation (Paras 26, 30).

B. Distinction Between Cause of Action and Relief

The judgment draws a clear distinction between:

• Cause of action (facts giving rise to the right to sue), and

• Relief claimed (consequence sought).

Similarity in relief clauses does not bar a subsequent suit if factual substratum differs (Paras 17–21, 28).

C. Suppression of Facts — Not an Automatic Dismissal

While reaffirming the doctrine that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, the Court adopts a balanced approach:

• Acknowledges non-disclosure of earlier proceedings and criminal complaint;

• Holds that such facts ought to have been disclosed;

• However, since no interim relief had been granted, dismissal was not automatic.
  Opportunity to amend plaint was considered appropriate (Paras 32–33).

D. Media Trial and Defamation

The Court expresses disapproval of broadcasts which:

• Convey a finding of guilt before trial concludes;

• Fail to obtain the version of the affected person;

• Create prejudice in the public mind.

Such conduct is prima facie defamatory and legally unsustainable (Para 31).

E. Judicial Restraint at Threshold Stage

The Court consciously refrains from deciding merits of defamation allegations at the admission stage, limiting itself to procedural propriety and maintainability (Paras 16, 26).

---

III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)

• Plaintiffs Subhash Chandra and Zee Media Corporation Limited alleged repeated defamatory broadcasts by defendant TV channels (Paras 1–2).

• Defendants objected on ground of suppression of:

  • Bombay High Court suit,

  • Criminal complaint,

  • Interim stay order (Paras 3–11, 32).

• Court found Bombay suit related to a different press conference and programme (Paras 27–28).

• Present suit concerned different broadcasts on different dates, some occurring even after the Bombay suit (Paras 28–31).

• No interim injunction had been granted till date (Para 33).

---

IV. FINAL DIRECTIONS / RESULT

• Court declined to dismiss the suit at threshold.

• Plaintiffs granted liberty:

  • to amend plaint, or

  • to file a fresh suit incorporating all relevant facts.

• Objections of defendants kept open to be decided on merits.

• Matter directed to be listed before Roster Bench.
  [Paras 33–34]

---

Ratio (Concise)

Repeated defamatory broadcasts constitute a continuing tort giving rise to fresh causes of action; non-disclosure of prior proceedings is improper but, absent accrued advantage, may be cured by amendment rather than outright dismissal.