Page 1 of 18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 2 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...4
I. CASES REFERRED…………………………………………………………….4
II. STATUTES REFERRED………………………………………………………..4
III. BOOKS REFERRED……………………………………………………………4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………5
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………...6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………..7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….8
1. Whether the actions of the defendants amount to defamation of the plaintiff?...........8
1.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a public apology from the defendants, as a
measure of restitution for the injury caused to his reputation?.............................8
1.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages caused by the Respondents'
actions?..................................................................................................................8
2. Whether Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the defamatory statements made by
Sartaj Singh, its news anchor?......................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………......11
1. Defamation of the Plaintiff…………………………………………………………...10
1.1 Entitlement to a Public Apology………………………………………………….11
1.2 Entitlement to a Monetary Compensation………………………………………..12
2. Vicarious Liability of Quibbler TV…………………………………………………..13
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………...15
ANNEXURE-A1......................................................................................................................16
ANNEXURE-A2......................................................................................................................17
ANNEXURE-A3......................................................................................................................18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 3 of 18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

&: And
AIR: All India Reporter
Art: Article
Rs: Rupess
CPC.: Code of Civil Procedure
HC: High Court
Hon’ble: Honourable
IPC: Indian Penal Code
Pl: Plaintiff
SC: Supreme Court
SCC: Supreme Court Cases
Sec: Section
TV: Television
US.: United States
vs: versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 4 of 18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:
1. Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
2. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Parshuram Babaram Sawant (2011)
(113) BomLR3801
3. Chris Lance Cairns vs Lalit Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB)
4. Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) AIR 1697, 1966 SCR
(3) 727
5. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs the State of Saurashtra (1957) 1957 AIR 264
6. Short vs J & W Henderson Ltd [1946] UKHL J0329-4
7. Lloyd vs Grace, Smith (1912) AC 716
8. Exxon Shipping Co. vs Baker (2008) 554 U.S. 471

STATUTES REFERRED:
1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th ed., LexisNexis, 2017
2. Ramaswamy Iyer, The Law of Torts, 10th ed., LexisNexis, 2015

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 5 of 18

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff has filed the present suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Ordinary Original
Civil Jurisdiction Original Side.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 6 of 18

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff, Wilson, is the founder and CEO of Essex Corporation, a leading
financial advisory company that he started with his college friends five years ago. The
plaintiff has worked hard to build the reputation and brand value of his company,
which has grown exponentially in the financial market.

2. The defendant no. 1 is Rachel. The defendant no. 2, Sartaj Singh, is a news anchor
and journalist working for the defendant no. 3, Quibbler TV, a popular television
channel that broadcasts news and current affairs programs.

3. The plaintiff was in the process of finalizing a deal with Umbrella Corporation, a
giant conglomerate of financial companies based in the United States, for the takeover
of Essex Corporation. The deal, if successful, would have made the plaintiff the
youngest billionaire in the country and a global leader in the financial sector.

4. On 23.11.2018, the defendant no. 3 aired an interview of the defendant no. 1, in which
she made several false and malicious allegations against the plaintiff. She accused the
plaintiff of stalking and harassing and claimed that he was a serial offender who had
victimized women. She also said that the me-too movement would be a farce unless
men like the plaintiff were punished and made to feel remorse for their actions.

5. Based on the interview of the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 2 conducted a two-
hour story on the prime-time slot of the defendant no. 3. The story also called for the
viewers to vote on a poll question: “Whether Wilson should be allowed to get away
with harassing women?” The story also initiated a twitter campaign with the hashtag
#wilsonthepervert, which went viral and attracted thousands of negative comments
and reactions against the plaintiff.

6. The defamatory statements and publications of the defendants caused immense

damage to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, both personally and
professionally. The plaintiff also faced severe mental and emotional distress and
humiliation due to the false accusations.

7. The deal with Umbrella Corporation, which was on the verge of completion, was
called off by the latter, who cited the media trial and public backlash against the
plaintiff as the reason for their withdrawal. The plaintiff lost a golden opportunity to
expand his business and achieve his dreams. The plaintiff also suffered huge financial
losses, as the value of his company and shares plummeted due to the negative
publicity.

8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the defamatory acts of the defendants, filed the present suit
before this Hon’ble Court, seeking a public apology from the defendants, along with
monetary damages of Rs. 100 crores.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 7 of 18

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the statements and publications of the defendants amount to defamation of the
plaintiff?
1.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a public apology from the defendants, as a
measure of restitution for the injury caused to his reputation?
1.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages to compensate for the financial
losses and irreparable damage caused by the Respondents' actions?

2. Whether Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the defamatory statements made by Sartaj
Singh, its news anchor?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 8 of 18

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the statements and publications of the defendants amount to defamation of the
plaintiff?
The plaintiff submits that the statements and publications of the defendants are defamatory in
nature, as they have lowered the reputation and esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of the
public. The defendants have made false and malicious imputations against the plaintiff,
without any basis or proof, with the intention of harming his reputation and goodwill. The
defendants have also published the defamatory statements to a large number of people,
through the medium of television and social media, thereby causing widespread
dissemination and circulation of the same.

1.1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a public apology from the defendants, as a measure
of restitution for the injury caused to his reputation?
The plaintiff submits that he is entitled to a public apology from the defendants, as a measure
of restitution and reparation for the injury caused to his reputation and dignity. The plaintiff
submits that the defendants should be directed by this Hon’ble Court to issue a public
apology to the plaintiff, in the same manner and mode as they have made and published the
defamatory statements, i.e., through the television channel and the social media platforms of
the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff submits that the public apology should be unconditional and
unequivocal and should clearly admit the falsity and malice of the allegations made by the
defendants against the plaintiff.

1.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages caused by the Respondents' actions?
The plaintiff submits that he is entitled to monetary damages from the defendants, as a
measure of compensation and deterrence for the harm caused to his reputation and goodwill.
The plaintiff submits that the defamatory acts of the defendants have resulted in huge
financial losses to the plaintiff, as he has lost a lucrative deal with Umbrella Corporation and
has also suffered a decline in the value of his company and shares. The plaintiff submits that
the defamatory acts of the defendants have also caused immense mental and emotional
distress and humiliation to the plaintiff, who has been subjected to public ridicule and
contempt. The plaintiff submits that the quantum of damages should be commensurate with
the gravity and extent of the defamation and should also consider the status and position of
the plaintiff, as well as the motive and conduct of the defendants. The plaintiff claims
monetary damages of Rs. 100 crores from the defendants, jointly and severally.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 9 of 18

2. Whether Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the defamatory statements made by Sartaj
Singh, its news anchor?
The plaintiff submits that Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the defamatory statements
made by Sartaj Singh, its news anchor. In airing the interview and the subsequent story,
Quibbler TV provided a platform for the dissemination of false and damaging information
about the plaintiff. Even though Rachel was a former employee of Essex Corporation, her
statements were given a larger audience and credibility by being broadcast on a popular
television channel. Quibbler TV, as the employer of Sartaj Singh and the broadcaster of the
defamatory content, should be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, as they
were acting within the scope of their employment.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 10 of 18

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Defamation of the Plaintiff.

Sec 499, Indian Penal Code states that “anyone who makes or publishes any false accusation
or anything untrue or false with intent to harm the person’s reputation for being aware or
suspecting that such a charge will damage that person’s reputation, except in the cases
predicted in the years to come, is said to be a defamatory action”. The plaintiff submits that
the statements and publications of the defendants amount to defamation of the plaintiff as
they have made false and malicious imputations concerning the plaintiff, intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants have no defence or justification for
their defamatory acts, as they do not fall within any of the exceptions provided under Sec.
499 of the IPC.1
The plaintiff submits that he has a right to protect his reputation, which is an integral part of
his dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Subramaniam
Swamy vs Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the right
to reputation is an inherent right guaranteed by Article 21 and hence, the right to freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) must be balanced with the right under Article 21
and cannot prevail over the right under Article 21.2 [ANNEXURE-A1]
The plaintiff submits that Rachel’s statements are not based on any factual evidence or proof
but are mere allegations and insinuations. Rachel has not filed any complaint or FIR against
the plaintiff, nor has she produced any witness or document to substantiate her accusations.
Rachel has also not disclosed the time, place, manner, or circumstances of the alleged
incidents of stalking and harassment by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submits that the
allegations are not only false, but also defamatory per se, as they impute an offence involving
moral turpitude to the plaintiff, which lowers his esteem in the eyes of the public and exposes
him to hatred, contempt, and ridicule.
The plaintiff submits that the defendants have also acted with malice and bad faith, as they
have deliberately and intentionally targeted the plaintiff to tarnish his image and reputation,
and to sabotage his business deal with Umbrella Corporation. The timing and manner of the
statements and publications of the defendants indicate that they had an ulterior motive to
harm the plaintiff and his company, and to gain publicity and sensationalism for themselves.

1. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Para III @Pg 62, Swamy vs Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 11 of 18

ISSUE 1.1: Entitlement to a Public Apology.

The plaintiff submits that the defendants have further aggravated the injury to the plaintiff by
broadcasting and circulating their defamatory statements and publications on a wide scale,
through television, social media, and other platforms. The defendants have reached out to a
large and diverse audience, and have caused irreparable damage to the plaintiff's reputation,
both nationally and internationally. The defendants have also incited the public opinion
against the plaintiff, by conducting polls, debates, and campaigns, and by using derogatory
and inflammatory hashtags, such as #wilsonthepervert. The council on behalf of the petitioner
humbly refers to the famous case of Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs
Parshuram Babaram Sawant (2011) (113) BomLR3801, where Pune trial court had decreed
the suit for Rs100 crore against the TV Channel. TimesNow had appealed against the trial
court verdict, but the Bombay HC declined to do so, followed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.3 The cause for this whole episode was the wrongful inclusion of a picture of Justice
P.B. Sawant along with other offenders in the Ghaziabad PF scam. The question clearly rosed
that What exactly are the professional obligations of journalists and media establishments?
Who gave them the sole right to publicize nonsense about people and issues? When they face
repercussions for their actions then only, they start remembering their professional duties?
The plaintiff has suffered mental agony, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of self-
esteem, which resulted in facing social ostracism, professional setback, and legal harassment
due to the so conduct of defamation by the defendants. The plaintiff submits that a public
apology is a form of retraction or correction, which is recognized as a valid remedy in
defamation cases. The plaintiff submits that the law of defamation aims to protect the
reputation of a person from false and malicious imputations, and to provide adequate redress
for the injury caused by such imputations.
The plaintiff submits that a public apology can serve both these purposes, as it can
acknowledge the falsity of the imputations, express regret, and remorse for the same, and
vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the public. The plaintiff submits that a
public apology is also in line with the precedents and principles laid down by the courts in
defamation cases. The courts have also held that a public apology should be prompt, sincere,
and unconditional, and should be given the same prominence and publicity as the defamatory
statement or publication. In addition, the courts have also held that a public apology can
mitigate the damages or reduce the quantum of damages in defamation cases, if it is accepted
by the plaintiff.4

3. TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO.LTD & ANR. vs PARSHURAM BABARAM SAWANT Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29979/2011

4. Public apology can mitigate the quantum of damages in defamation cases: Delhi HC (2017) The
Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/public-apology-more-
appropriate-than-money-in-defamation-cases-delhi-hc-4637795/ (Accessed: 22 November 2023).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 12 of 18

ISSUE: 1.2: Entitlement to a Monetary Compensation.

The plaintiff submits that he is entitled to monetary damages to compensate for the financial
losses and irreparable damage to his reputation caused by the respondents’ actions. In the case
of Chris Lance Cairns vs Lalit Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB), for awarding Damages, it was
noted by the court that “The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover,
as general compensatory damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he has
suffered. That sum must compensate him for the damage to his reputation; vindicate his good
name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication
has caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to reputation the most important
factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the plaintiff's personal integrity,
professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty, and the core attributes of his personality, the
more serious it is likely to be”.5 [ANNEXURE-A2]
The plaintiff submits that in the present case, he has suffered immense loss and damage due
to the defamation by the respondents. The plaintiff submits that he has lost his business
opportunity with Umbrella Corporation, which would have made him the country’s youngest
billionaire. The plaintiff submits that the deal was called off due to the false and malicious
allegations of sexual harassment made by Rachel, and the media trial conducted by Sartaj
Singh and Quibbler TV, without any verification of facts or evidence. The plaintiff submits
that the respondents have jeopardized his business reputation and goodwill and have caused
him financial loss and hardship.
The plaintiff submits that he is entitled to monetary damages to the tune of Rs. 100 crores, as
compensation for the loss and injury caused by the defamation by the respondents. The
plaintiff submits that this amount is reasonable and proportionate to the gravity and extent of
the defamation by the respondents, and the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff submits that this amount is also necessary and sufficient to restore his reputation and
to deter the respondents from repeating their defamatory actions.

5. Para 120 @Pg 40, Chris Lance Cairns vs Lalit Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 13 of 18

ISSUE 2: Vicarious Liability of Quibbler TV.

The petitioner submits that the third defendant, Quibbler TV, is vicariously liable for the
actions of the second defendant, Sartaj, who is an employee of Quibbler TV and works as a
news anchor and journalist for the channel. The petitioner relies on the following grounds to
establish the liability of Quibbler TV:
The master-servant relationship is one of the essential conditions for imposing vicarious
liability on an employer for the torts committed by its employee. In the case of Dhrangadhra
Chemical Works Ltd. vs the State of Saurashtra (1957) 1957 AIR 264, the Supreme Court
held that the supervision and control test is the primary test for determining the relationship
of employment [ANNEXURE-A3]. This test was laid down in the case of Short vs J & W
Henderson Ltd [1946] UKHL J0329-4 by Lord Thankerton, who pointed out four factors of a
contract of service. They are categorized as: ability to select the servant/employee; the power
of deciding the pay; controlling the method of doing the work, and the authority to suspend
the services. In this case, Quibbler TV is the employer of Sartaj, who is a news anchor and
journalist working for the channel. As such, there is a clear employer-employee/master-
servant relationship between Quibbler TV and Sartaj.
In the case of Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) AIR 1697,
1966 SCR (3) 727, the Supreme Court held that an employer can be held vicariously liable
for the wrongful acts of its employees if the acts are committed during the course of
employment. Sartaj acted within the scope of his employment when he conducted the
interview with Rachel, who made false and defamatory allegations against the petitioner, and
when he aired a two-hour story on prime time, in which he further vilified and slandered the
petitioner. Sartaj also initiated a twitter campaign with the hashtag #wilsonthepervert, which
was endorsed and promoted by Quibbler TV. Quibbler TV exercises control over the content
it broadcasts, and it is responsible for the actions of its employees in the course of their
employment. The decision to air the interview, conduct the voting segment, and initiate a
Twitter campaign was within the purview of Quibbler TV's editorial control. In the case of
the Lloyd vs Grace, Smith (1912) AC 716, the court held that an employer is liable for the
actions of an employee if those actions were closely connected with the employee's
authorized duties.
Quibbler TV failed to exercise due care and diligence in supervising and controlling the
conduct of Sartaj, who acted recklessly and irresponsibly in making baseless and unfounded
accusations against the petitioner, without verifying the facts or giving the petitioner a chance
to defend himself. Quibbler TV also did not take any corrective or preventive measures to
stop or rectify the damage caused by Sartaj's actions, such as issuing a retraction, an apology,
or a clarification. Quibbler TV, therefore, was negligent in its duty as an employer and as a
media house, and hence, liable for the tort of defamation committed by Sartaj. In the case of
Exxon Shipping Co. vs Baker (2008) 554 U.S. 471, the court emphasized that an employer
has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm caused by its employees in the course of
their employment.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 14 of 18

Quibbler TV benefited from the actions of Sartaj, who created a sensation and a controversy
by targeting the petitioner, who was a prominent and successful figure in the financial sector.
Quibbler TV gained publicity, viewership, and revenue from the sensationalism and the
scandal created by Sartaj's actions, and therefore, Quibbler TV cannot escape its liability by
claiming that it was unaware or innocent of Sartaj's actions. Quibbler TV, in fact, encouraged
and supported Sartaj's actions, and therefore, must bear the liability for the same. In the case
of Hussain vs New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd. (1986) EWCA Civ J0731-12, the court held that
an employer can be held vicariously liable if the wrongful act of the employee is committed
in furtherance of the employer's interests.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 15 of 18

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of questions presented, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the
counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, request the honourable High Court to:
1. Admit the suit and issue summons to the defendants;
2. Grant an interim injunction restraining the defendants from making any further
defamatory statements or publications against the plaintiff;
3. Direct the defendants to issue a public apology to the plaintiff, to be aired on Quibbler
TV;
4. Award monetary damages to the tune of Rs. 100 crores to the plaintiff;
And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.

In the respectful submission before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Counsel Kunal Shekhar
on behalf of Wilson (“the Petitioner”).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 16 of 18

ANNEXURE-A1
Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 17 of 18

ANNEXURE-A2
Chris Lance Cairns vs Lalit Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 Page 18 of 18

ANNEXURE-A3
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. vs the State of Saurashtra (1957) 1957 AIR 264

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER