In a significant judgement that unfolded on a not-so-ordinary Friday, the Delhi High Court has ordered a weighty sum of ₹2 crore to be paid as damages by Tehelka, the controversial online news platform, along with its renowned journalists, Tarun Tejpal, Aniruddha Bahal, and Mathew Samuel. The individuals on the receiving end of this court order also includes the retired Major General MS Ahluwalia, whose reputation was tarnished in a 2001 sting operation. Major General Ahluwalia, after enduring 22 long years of baseless accusations, finally tasted justice [Maj Gen MS Ahluwalia v M/s Tehelka.com & Ors].

The murky saga dates back to 2001, when Tehelka carried out a sensational sting operation, famously (or rather, infamously) dubbed as "Operation West End." It pointed a grimy finger at Major General Ahluwalia, accusing him of indulging in corrupt practices while conducting defence deals. The said operation grabbed eyeballs when it was aired on the widely followed news platform, Tehelka.com, and the prominent Zee TV Network.

What was particularly galling to Ahluwalia was that he was singled out by name by Tehelka and its journalists, Tejpal, Bahal and Samuel. According to him, they blatantly published unverified and false allegations against him. Not just that, Zee TV, its chairman Subhash Chandra, and CEO Sandeep Goyal also found a mention in his defamation case. After all, the sting operation was broadcast to millions of homes via their channel.

Once a respected Major General, Ahluwalia was at that time the Director-General of Ordnance in the Indian Army. Following the public broadcasting of this sting operation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) promptly filed a case against him under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and under Section 9 and 10 of PCA. Not surprisingly, this was fueled by the infamous news portal's propaganda.

With a domino effect, the Indian Army court-martialled Ahluwalia, recommending a stern dismissal from service. This blow was somewhat softened when his punishment was later downgraded and he was given a 'Severe Displeasure (Recordable)' citation by the army chief.

In an episode that followed the highly publicized sting operation, a court of inquiry was set up. Their suggestion was to hand over a dismissal notice to Ahluwalia. However, the Army Chief of that time decided to award him a slightly less severe "severe displeasure (recordable)" and declared his conduct as "unbecoming of an army officer".

In a detailed verdict that meticulously examined the nuances of the case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pointed out that Tehelka and its journalists had maliciously defamed Ahluwalia. Despite no evidence pointing towards him demanding money, they craftily included such insinuations in their news reports.

Even the prospect of an apology from the accused party was dismissed by the Court. According to them, it was as irrelevant as a drop in the ocean since Ahluwalia had already been subjected to a Court of Inquiry and had been condemned as "unbecoming of an army officer".

The court opined, “The reputation of the plaintiff has suffered as he not only faced lowering of estimation in the eyes of public but his character also got maligned with serious allegations of corruption which no subsequent refutation can redress or heal. Much time has passed and plaintiff has already lived with ill fame for more than 23 years. Considering the enormity of the nature of defamation, apology at this stage is not only inadequate but is meaningless.”

The disgraced army officer turned to the court for justice in 2002. His contention was that Tehelka's videotape, along with the associated transcript, created an unfair impression of him demanding a Blue Label Whisky and ₹10 lakh from the reporter. These baseless allegations, he claimed, tarnished his image, cast unwarranted aspersions on his character and reputation, and silenced his pleas of innocence.

Ahluwalia maintained that the video was riddled with false allegations, which were nothing more than a result of malicious intent. According to him, it was a calculated move, done deliberately without proper verification of facts. He further added that the video was tampered with and manipulated to distort the truth. He argued that it was selectively edited, removing certain parts and adding editorial comments which were not backed by facts.

Major news channels and print media lapped up this news story like a juicy bone. However, in front of the Army's Court of Inquiry, Samuel (who was the 'brains' behind the news in Tehelka) unexpectedly gave a statement that exonerated Ahluwalia. He declared that Ahluwalia never asked for money and even refused to attend a dinner at a five-star hotel or accept any hospitality. It's interesting to note that Ahluwalia's statement, “I am only giving you a word of advice as a friend” was conveniently excised from the video.

Justice Krishna, after assessing the case, highlighted that there was no demand made by Ahluwalia, nor was any money paid to him. Yet, against all reason, the news item contained statements alluding to these false claims.

The Court remarked that these statements were nothing but a product of the defendants' vivid imagination.

It further stated, “The plaintiff was a man holding the position of Major General in the Army and was a man of repute. There cannot be worse defamation and disrepute to a person of integrity and honour than a false imputation of him having demanded and then accepted bribe of ₹50,000. There was wide publicity of this transcript which was admittedly put on the website of Tehelka.com, Defendant No. 1. and it continues to remain on their website.”

Justice Krishna ultimately determined that a case of defamation was indeed made out against Tehelka and its journalists, and Ahluwalia was entitled to damages. However, the court didn't find Zee and Subhash Chandra culpable of defamation.

The Court concluded, “In view of the findings on issue No.1 and 2, the suit is dismissed against the defendant Nos. 5 to 7 [Zee and Chandra], and the damages in the sum of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) is awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant No.1 to 4 for having caused defamation, along with costs of the suit."

Major General MS Ahluwalia was represented by advocates Chetan Anand and Akash Srivastava. On the other hand, Tehelka and its journalists were defended by Senior Advocate Meet Malhotra, Vivesh B Saharya, Akshat Agarwal, and Palak. Zee and Subhash Chandra were represented by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, along with advocates Petal Chandhok and Mimansi Sethi.

All in all, it was a day when justice was served, long after the embers of the scandal had cooled, reminding us of the timeless adage - justice delayed, but not denied.