The Punjab and Haryana High Court on May 30 stayed the order of a Mohali court, directing journalist Rahul Pandita to pay Rs 50 lakh as compensation to a former CRPF officer, for writing an allegedly defamatory story against him in an English newspaper in 2014.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Pandita, challenging the order of the additional district and sessions judge of Mohali, which ordered Rs 50 lakh compensation to be given to the former inspector general of CRPF, Harpreet Singh Sidhu.

“The execution of decree shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing only,” ordered Justice Gurbir Singh, while issuing notice on the plea for October 21, 2024.

The Mumbai Press Club today urged media houses to stand up for their reporters. The post by the press body on X accompanied the letter it sent to N Ravi, publisher of the The Hindu Group, and Suresh Nambath, Editor of The Hindu, on June 25, urging them “not to abandon Rahul Pandita in his legal battle and mount an organisational defence for truthful reporting”.

The post said, “Though a verified story, the IG of Police Harpreet Sidhu began legal proceedings against the journalist and the newspaper. The Hindu initially defended Pandita. However, later, in a dramatic turnaround, the newspaper reached a compromise and left Pandita to face the music.”

It added that while the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the order against Pandita, the matter raises serious questions. “Isn’t it the duty of a news organisation to defend its team members for stories published after due verification? If journalists are left to face penalties in lakhs of rupees in damages, will it not have a chilling effect on free and fair reporting?”

Rahul Pandita, in an X post in August 2018, wrote, “I am fighting a civil defamation case all by myself, filed against me by a powerful IPS officer, just because The Hindu management chose to put its tail between legs. So let’s not talk about backbone.”

He was pointing out the irony of N Ram’s statement, “If top management lacks the backbone to stand up for its journalists who do independent and good work, then that channel doesn’t deserve support.”

In the High Court, advocate Kshitij Sharma argued that the petitioner had allegedly written an article with respect to an encounter between CPI (Maoist) and CRPF personnel in an incident in Chhattisgarh, wherein, Sidhu was then the IG CRPF.

Sidhu initially filed a defamation civil suit against Pandita and The Hindu seeking compensation, which was dismissed. However, the appellate court in Mohali (ADJ Mohali) later granted Sidhu’s plea, awarding him Rs 50 lakh in compensation. The court cited “loss of reputation and goodwill, mental agony, and hardship due to unfounded derogatory remarks amounting to defamation against the plaintiff.”

Pandita’s plea stated that the articles were not “personal in nature” and do not invade the privacy of the respondent in any manner. They were authored with due care and caution, published in good faith as part of official duties, and without malice, the plea added.