On June 9, 2014, Mint reported that Infosys has sent legal notices of Rs 2,000 crore each to at least three publications owned by Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited and The Indian Express Limited. The notices were reportedly in response to a few articles published in TheTimes Of India, Economic Times and Financial Express – which Infosys claims were defamatory to the company.

The articles concerned pertained to the many high-level exits in Infosys and the alleged uncertainty over the selection of the company’s new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Incidentally, on May 31 Infosys had also released a media statement, marking all stock exchanges they are listed on. The statement was intended to convey that the speculation on the company’s search for a CEO was “unwarranted”. The media statement also clarified that “Any other reports and rumours (about the search for a new CEO) are merely speculations at this point”.

With legal notices by corporates to media houses/authors becoming increasingly commonplace, it has perhaps become necessary to discuss what purposes these notices serve. Should media houses be dragged to court for “speculative” reports which could have a damning impact on the subject being reported (Infosys’ share prices have taken a major hit over the last month)? Or do corporate houses serve these notices to media houses to ensure that they are rarely reported on critically? And it is also true that wrong “facts” are often reported by news organisations which have a huge impact. Newslaundry spoke to a few journalists to get their viewpoints.

Paranjoy GuhaThakurta, who was himself a recipient of a legal notice from Reliance India Limited (RIL) for his book Gas Wars and another from Time Publishing House, said, “Though I haven’t reviewed the notice personally, this looks to be a case of high-handedness on the part of Infosys, prima-facie. The problem is, defamation is undefined”. He added that “legitimate comments” on the basis of facts cannot be called defamation. “However, if the publications did get their facts wrong, it is important that that the stories are revisited.” Thakurta did express apprehension about corporates being too sensitive about their “reputations”. “If your reputation is so fragile that it is tarnished by a few newspaper reports, then that is a problem”, he said.

R Jagannathan, Editor-in-Chief of Firstpost, said that news reports should be “balanced”, particularly in this media-savvy age where news reports can actually affect a corporate house – its functioning, share prices, et al. Jagannathan also lamented the “weak” libel laws of the country which allowed cases to go on forever to no conclusion.

Hartosh Singh Bal, Political Editor – Caravan, raised the issue of transparency. “Infosys’ health concerns the public and in light of the mass exits it’s only fair that Infosys is more upfront about things”. Bal also commented on legal notices being used as an “intimidation technique”. Corporate houses with big bucks often resort to serving notices. “In fact, in 2013, the Times Publishing House had itself sent a legal notice to a 22-year-old blogger for a blog post she had written on a copyright battle between Financial Times Limited (FTL) and Times Publishing House”, pointed out Bal.

Mukund Padmanabhan, Editor – Hindu Business Line, said that he hadn’t seen the notice and declined from commenting on the specifics of this particular case. However, in an email to Newslaundry, Padmanabhan did address the fine line between individual reputation and public interest that news stories often tread. “There is no case for defamation just because stories are ‘speculative in nature’ – the law is meant to protect reputations from unfair or malicious attacks. It is not meant to deter opinion – for instance, on the possible repercussions of resignations or exits. In defamation law, it is always necessary to keep in mind the fine balance between the private right to protect one’s reputation and the public – and indeed the media’s – right to freedom of speech.”

Reporting stories that could hurt individual reputation (often hard-earned) but which are important in the light of public interest is not as simple as it seems. As Jagannathan says, a “balance” is important. But abstractness of terms like balance and defamation means that the legal notices – frivolous as well as serious – will keep coming. As long as the media remembers that “comment is free, but facts are sacred”, companies should remember that it is the media’s job to write reports – some of which are not always flattering to those being reported on.