An 86-year-old former IAS officer has been directed by a Delhi court to pay Rs 1 lakh token damages to a retired police officer for defamation by giving an unfair report of an inquiry panel set up aft
An 86-year-old former IAS officer has been directed by a Delhi court to pay Rs 1 lakh token damages to a retired police officer for defamation by giving an unfair report of an inquiry panel set up after the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. “The report filed by the IAS (officer) was based on non-existent material,” the court noted while directing the former IAS officer Kusum Lata Mittal to pay Rs 1 lakh in damages to Chandra Prakash, the retired additional commissioner of police (operations). The court held no immunity can be given to a public servant when the acts committed under the colour of office are alleged to be “malafide, arbitrary, smacking of nepotism and malice and deliberately intended to jeopardise the professional interest of a government servant without adopting the procedure prescribed by law.” Several committees were formed, including the panel comprising Justice D.K. Kapur and Ms Mittal, to inquire into the riots. The suit for damages was filed by Mr Prakash alleging that in a report published in a newspaper it was stated that there was a difference of approach in the procedure to be followed in conducting the inquiry since Justice Kapur was in favour of recording evidence and giving opportunity of hearing whereas Ms Mittal wanted to base her findings on the report of the Ved Marwah Committee, the previous panel.
The suit alleged that while Justice Kapur declined to indict any policeman, Ms Mittal indicted 72 police personnel, including Mr Prakash, on the basis of the Marwah committee and “she leaked her report to press.”
Additional district judge Kamini Lau, deciding the suit, said, “I hereby hold that when a public servant is hounded for years, his work discredited, his reputation compromised and career de-stroyed, then he certainly is not without a remedy. All these acts are uncondonable and actionable and hence the entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief of damages/ compensation qua Ms Mi-ttal whose report, I hold, is unfair and based upon non-existent material.” “There is a need for liability for private and public officials,” it said.
