Gambhir defamation case: Politicians should have thick skin, says HC

The Delhi high court refused to grant interim relief to the East Delhi MP in his suit against a Hindi newspaper.

People in public life such as politicians, and even judges, have to be “thick-skinned” in this age of social media, the Delhi high court said on Wednesday, refusing to grant interim relief to former cricketer and East Delhi Member of Parliament Gautam Gambhir on a defamation suit against a Hindi newspaper.

BJP MP from East Delhi, Gautam Gambhir. (HT Archive)

The court, however, observed that the newspaper reports were “indicative of willful campaign” against Gambhir.

Denying Gambhir’s request for an interim injunction, a single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said it could not issue a blanket order. It also issued summons to the editor and reporters of the newspaper, Punjab Kesari, to respond to the suit as well as to the application for interim relief of taking down the articles.

“If the reporter has gone to the area and found such comments being made then... You are a public servant, an elected person, you need not be so sensitive.....Any public person should be thick-skinned. With this social media and all, even judges have to be thick-skinned,” justice Singh said.

The BJP MP has sought ₹2 crore in damages from the newspaper for a string of articles — published between March 2022 to November 2022 — that he claimed, attempted to create a defamatory narrative about his work and painted him “as a casteist person and a high-nosed politician”.

Gambhir also accused the newspaper of systematically publishing malicious and libellous articles to target him. During the proceedings, Gambhir’s counsel said that his opinions were not sought by the newspaper or its reporters.

The court, however, also remarked that some of the words used for Gambhir were not appropriate. “Does this person live in your constituency? If he is a voter for you, then he can say things like that. This is on the lighter side... Some of the words and sentences that he has used are not proper for your paper,” the judge said.

In its order, the court said, “...this court is of the prima facie opinion that many of these articles are indicative of willful campaign launched by the defendants to lower the reputation of standing of the plaintiff... this does not befit a newspaper of the repute and stature of the defendants to indulge in such a conduct”.

The counsel for the newspaper then asked if Gambhir’s plea for injunction implied that the newspaper should not report on him unless he likes it.

Seeking a response to the suit from the newspaper within 30 days, the case fixed October 18 as the next date of hearing.