On Wednesday, August 20, a case went up for hearing at around noon in Court No. 20 of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner, India TV, had filed charges of defamation against its former Editorial Director, Qamar Waheed Naqvi. The hearing was over in a jiffy as India TV sought more time to file a rejoinder to Naqvi’s response to their original allegations.

On May, 29, India TV filed a case of defamation against Naqvi, following his resignation as Editorial Director of the organisation in April, close on the heels of the channel’s much talked-about interview with then prime ministerial front-runner, Narendra Modi. The channel claimed that Naqvi was responsible for maligning its image by going public with his resignation even before the management had accepted it.  It also contended that the reasons cited by news reports for the resignation were false, and Naqvi had himself leaked them out. In its support, India TV cited news reports from The Times of India and Indian Express, and a tweet by Naqvi.

India TV also claimed there were no editorial differences conveyed by Naqvi to the management before, and that the resignation was an attempt on his part to save face after his performance was found wanting in a recently conducted review meeting.

Responding to the allegations, lawyer Gopal Shankar Narayan, representing Naqvi, submitted that allegations of defamation couldn’t possibly hold, as Naqvi was not responsible for any of the news reports on him parting ways with India TV.

It must be mentioned that none of the news reports cited carried any quotes attributed to Naqvi. In his tweet, Naqvi had urged people to not politicise the issue.

Narayan also refuted India TV’s claim that Naqvi had never conveyed his differences with the channel’s editorial line. Elaborating, he said that Naqvi had, on several occasions, written emails to the channel’s Editor-in-Chief and Chairman Rajat Sharma concerning the unofficial ban on reporting on the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as well as the “insensitive” coverage of one of the party’s leaders.  The lawyer also termed India TV’s claims of a review meeting false. “No performance review meeting of any sort ever happened,” he asserted.

Speaking to Newslaundry and explaining the flow of events, Naqvi said that he had sent a resignation mail to Sharma on April 13. “He responded the same day in the evening, accepting my resignation,” said Naqvi. He said that he would ask Hemant Sharma, News Director at India TV to help me relieve my responsibilities. (Newslaundry has examined this particular electronic correspondence.)  However, Naqvi claims that Hemant Sharma was rather hostile and confronted him on the news reports about his resignation that had already been published (Newslaundry too had reported the resignation). Naqvi claims that he isn’t responsible for any of the news reports and that is what he told Hemant Sharma then too. Sharma, supposedly, asked Naqvi to serve a three-month notice period.

Following that, Naqvi wrote an email to Hemant Sharma, the purpose of which, according to Naqvi, was to put on record the verbal conversation that transpired between them. But Sharma, alleged Naqvi, pulled a complete volte-face, and told him that the resignation was only a face-saving exercise on his part because his performance was found wanting.

Naqvi also claims that his official email was blocked immediately after his meeting with Hemant Sharma. “When I pointed it out to him, he didn’t bother responding,” said Naqvi, “and if they wanted me to serve the notice period, they should have been more clear about it.” Naqvi also said that the last correspondence between the two was a text message sent by him, to which he never got a reply. A week later, Sharma sent Naqvi a text with India TV’s TRP details following the Modi interview. “The TRPs had obviously sky-rocketed, and I assume he sent that text to me in jest.”

Speaking about past editorial run-ins he had with Rajat Sharma, Naqvi said that he had on record, objected to the News Broadcasters Association’s (NBA) – an organisation Sharma wields considerable influence over – resolution against AAP and Arvind Kejriwal. “The NBA is primarily a body of owners, and I though it was a problem if owners decided editorial matters and so wrote to the Broadcast Editor’s Association expressing my concerns.” I categorically wrote to Sharma at that point of time and told him that I didn’t stand on the same ground as him.”

Naqvi admitted that though the immediate reason for his resignation was the Modi interview,  it wasn’t the only one. “On many occasions, stories I’d reject  would go in Rajat Sharma’s prime-time bulletin without anyone even informing me once,” he said.

We mailed Rahul Khanna, Legal Head, India TV, a questionnaire with the following questions on August 20:

1. Is it true that Rajat Sharma, India TV’s Editor-in-Chief and Chairman had initially accepted Naqvi’s resignation?

2. Naqvi’s lawyer claims that a performance review meeting (where, according to your initial notice, Naqvi was given a warning for under-par performance) never took place. Would you like to respond with more specific details of the meeting?

3. Naqvi’s lawyer also claims that, contrary to your contention, Naqvi had always had editorial differences with the management – which he pointed out time and again. Would you deny that?

4. Naqvi also claims that he was never categorically asked to serve any notice period, and his email was blocked by the company. Would you contest that?

We haven’t got any response till the time of this story going online.