Tendulkar, Gandhi and Yuvak Biradari
Published by Yazad Jal February 4th, 2005 in LawCan you defame somebody who’s dead? Well, some organisation called Yuvak Biradari is deeply upset with remarks made by Vijay Tendulkar on Gandhiji. The merits / demerits of the remarks are not relevant. What is, is the fact that Yuvak Biradari intends to sue Tendulkar for defamation. Without obviously caring to look up the law. I couldn’t find the bare act online, but here’s a helpful page. Note these two exceptions:
2. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever regarding the conduct or character of a public servant in discharge of his public function.3. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion regarding the conduct or character of any person touching any public question.
Yuvak Biradari would have to prove that Vijay Tendulkar acted in bad faith. Not easy at all. Before that they would also have to state in what way are they representatives of Gandhiji — what is their locus standi?
More questions: Who has appointed Yuvak Biradari to speak on behalf of all Indians and make claims like “his statements had hurt the feelings of the people of the country”? Have they asked all Indians? Even a small sample?
I may disagree with Tendulkar, but his statements have not hurt me in the least. This “hurt feelings” business is an excellent excuse to go after people whose ideas disagree with yours. So by criticising Yuvak Biradari, maybe I’ve hurt their feelings. Would I see a legal notice?
My take:
- Yuvak Biradari is doing this for publicity. Any half decent lawyer could tell them they don’t have a leg to stand on.
- Defamation / libel / slander laws need to be struck off the books. But I repeat myself.
- Claims of “hurt feelings” need to be looked at very suspiciously. They should have no place in a court of law. Damage needs to be tangible, not some fleeting feelings.
5 Responses to “Tendulkar, Gandhi and Yuvak Biradari”
- 1 Trackback on Feb 12th, 2005 at 3:30 am
Damages need to be tangible. So, u mean to say that a wife being emotionally tortured by her husband should have no laws to turn to, simply because she cant show any tangible damages. She cant ask for compensation for the emotional trauma she might have been forced to undergo. I mean, C’mon there are umpteen such cases where there are no visible damages, but the case demands compensation. And least of all, would u condone all sorts of slanderous writings in journalism, which is happenning anyway, under the adage of “freedom of speech”??
Damages need to be tangible. So, u mean to say that a wife being emotionally tortured by her husband should have no laws to turn to, simply because she cant show any tangible damages. She cant ask for compensation for the emotional trauma she might have been forced to undergo. I mean, C’mon there are umpteen such cases where there are no visible damages, but the case demands compensation. And least of all, would u condone all sorts of slanderous writings in journalism, which is happenning anyway, under the adage of “freedom of speech”??
Nitpick:
And least of all, would u condone all sorts of slanderous writings in journalism
If it’s in written form, it’s called “libel”, not “slander”.
a wife being emotionally tortured by her husband should have no laws to turn to
Well, she has the option of divorce, but beyond that, I don’t think there are any laws protecting her from her husband shouting at her, for instance. (But if he hits her, a criminal case can be filed against him.)
That “emotional torture” is a very slippery slope, my friend. Tell us what law you would propose and against what kind of “torture”.
i appriciate the approach towards humanism(manavatavad),please keep up and make this world better than we find it.