In response to the defamation complaint filed by Republic TV’s parent company against Times Now anchor Navika Kumar for allegedly making defamatory remarks against the channel and its founder in connection with the alleged WhatsApp chats mentioned in the charge sheet filed by the Mumbai Police in the TRP scam case, a Delhi court has taken cognizance of the same.
Chander Jit Singh, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, took cognizance and slated the matter to June 8 for pre-summoning evidence.
The complaint filed by ARG Outlier Media Private Limited alludes to the statements made by Navika Kumar relating to the chats of Republic TV Editor-in-Chief and founder Arnab Goswami on her show on January 18.
“Navika Kumar made rabid and unfounded claims accusing Republic Media Network’s founder of endangering national security and leaking state secrets, thereby jeopardising the goodwill of the network and endangering the entire organisation,” the 49-page complaint stated.
ARG Outlier Media Private Limited submitted that the defamatory show had over 85,000 views in addition to the live telecast at prime time in the satellite television, and “the scale of defamation faced by the complainant company is irreparable”.
The complaint further stated that it is not only an utter fabrication of facts and outright falsehood but is also a defamatory statement made to a large universal audience in order to prejudice their mind, eclipsing them from true facts and influence them through the wholly misleading broadcast.
“By misusing, misconstruing and distorting the documents from the Mumbai Police’s charge sheet in the TRP scam case, mainly the WhatsApp Chats, the accused person has gone on a reckless spree to spew grossly defamatory material,” the complainant further said.
The ARG Outlier Media Private Limited also went on to say that the “accused is jealous and the lack of ability of the accused to match the success of the complainant’s company has caused this defamatory show to be aired”.
The complainant emphasised that Navika Kumar cannot be permitted to steal a march over the adjudication process and pronounce someone guilt by elevating itself a parallel adjudication forum as the trial has yet not begun.
The company had requested the court to take cognisance of the complaint and give punishment to the accused in accordance with the law for the commission of an offence under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code.
(With IANS inputs)