(Prayer: This suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order IV Rule 1 Original Side Rules, to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,10,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Ten Thousand only) towards loss of reputation suffered by the plaintiff; and pass any other orders or directions that this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.)

1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,10,000/- towards loss of reputation suffered by the plaintiff.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a person of repute in the academic, research, social enterprise and public policy circles. He is the Executive Director of Inclusion Economics India Centre (formerly EPOD India) at the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR), a policyengaged research organisation headquartered in Chennai, working with several national and state government departments and a group of affiliated international researchers. The Plaintiff was also a Non-Resident Fellow of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School, and a Fellow of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard University. He is responsible for the overall management of the Inclusion Economics India Centre, which has regional offices in New Delhi, Patna, Bhopal and Raipur, and oversees the core teams, providing strategic leadership alongside partners such as Yale University. He has rich experience as a Quantitative Methods Instructor at Harvard Kennedy School, and was a Democracy Governance Fellow at the Harvard Ash Centre. He was a visiting professor at the African Development University, and is a graduate of Harvard Kennedy School's Mid-Career MPA programme as an Edward S. Mason Fellow (2017). He holds an MBA from the University of Oxford (2009), a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science from Bangalore University (2001), and was a Starting Bloc Social Innovation Fellow (2007). His international development work as COO of Riders for Health, hailed as the 7th most innovative NGO in the world, spanned strategy, governance, operations, innovative finance and advocacy. He led teams that set up a medical specimen transfer system for Ebola testing in Freetown, Sierra Leone, liaising with multiple stakeholders. He has worked extensively across Africa, including in Gambia, Liberia, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Lesotho, as well as in Israel and Palestine. At the age of 21, he established an NGO to help students from marginalised communities in Bangalore. He subsequently joined IFMR, headquartered in Chennai.

                   2.1.The Plaintiff submits that on 12.06.2018, the Defendant was appointed as Projects Finance Manager at a monthly salary of Rs.1,41,667/-, at Inclusion Economics India Centre, IFMR (formerly EPoD India). On 25.03.2022, the Defendant resigned following the discovery of misappropriation of funds, uncovered during a routine internal audit conducted on 24.03.2022 after a whistleblower alerted senior management. At the time, the Defendant's immediate superior was the Plaintiff. The Defendant was last drawing a salary of Rs.1,97,211/-. The Plaintiff submits that he played an important role in identifying the fraud, originally reported by a whistleblower. When confronted, the Defendant repaid Rs.6,07,988/- in two instalments, and on 25.03.2022 apologised and resigned. The Defendant, on a call with CFO Lalitha Janakiraman and Registrar S. Sundara Rajan, admitted that he had acted out of greed. His resignation was not accepted pending completion of the internal forensic audit and disciplinary action. It later came to the Plaintiff's knowledge that the Defendant had made baseless allegations against the Plaintiff's conduct and character to the forensic/audit committee and IFMR management via an email dated 26.05.2022 to the forensic auditor, which the Defendant forwarded on 06.10.2022 to Registrar Sundara Rajan in response to a Show Cause notice dated 26.09.2022. This came to the Plaintiff's knowledge only on 11.10.2022, when Mr. Sundara Rajan forwarded him the 26.05.2022 email. The Defendant is also stated to have forged documents and signatures of several staff, including the Plaintiff's, which was detected by the forensic auditors.

                   2.2.The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant levelled false allegations of misappropriation against him without any proof, based on bogus claims that cannot be substantiated in a court of law, being an attempt to damage the Plaintiff's reputation at his workplace. The Plaintiff has had a clean career record, and the allegations were an ill-founded attempt to cover up the Defendant's own criminal conduct. The Defendant's slander created a scandal at the workplace and tarnished the Plaintiff's reputation. The Plaintiff is a respectable citizen enjoying good reputation in India and abroad, commanding respect among faculty and staff at Inclusion Economics, and counterparts at Yale and Harvard. He is known to colleagues as humble, decent and kind, having treated all staff including the Defendant with respect and dignity. He also enjoys goodwill among donors such as the Gates Foundation, Yale University, LBSNAA, the Government of India, and senior officials of the Governments of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. Over a 24- year career, the Plaintiff has undertaken social sector work across Africa, Israel, Palestine and India, returning to India in 2019 despite lucrative international opportunities, out of commitment to public service. He commands great respect, dignity and prestige, having had an otherwise blotless career.

                   2.3.The Plaintiff submits that, in the months following discovery of the fraud, the organisation underwent severe stress while investigating whether further fraudulent transactions had occurred beyond what the Defendant admitted. The Plaintiff was placed under severe pressure to reassure colleagues, funders and management that robust financial processes were in place, while providing leadership, reassuring partners, and ensuring speedy resolution, all while the organisation's cash flows and operations were affected by the absence of a finance manager. The Plaintiff submits that the right to reputation is a natural right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Defendant's slander and defamation caused reputational damage and undermined credibility built by the Plaintiff over 25 years. The Plaintiff has suffered considerable distress on account of these allegations; his mental health has been affected over the past year, for which he has sought treatment, as documented by medical records. The organisation, having found no evidence against him, allowed him to continue leading and managing it effectively and with integrity.

                   2.4.The Plaintiff submits that he sent a legal notice dated 16.12.2022 to the Defendant for slander and defamation, to which the Defendant sent a reply notice dated 20.12.2022. In that reply, the Defendant admitted having resigned on 25.03.2022, having been in possession of misappropriated funds, and having refunded the swindled amount. The Employee Disciplinary Action Report dated 07.02.2023, issued by the Registrar of IFMR to the Defendant, confirms that the Defendant swindled funds and attempted to implicate the Plaintiff for his own acts of misappropriation.

3. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 8 documents were exhibited as Exs.P.1 to P.8.

4. Despite service of summons, the defendant remained absent and was set ex-parte.

5. Ms. Rohini Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that, merely under the pretext of freedom of expression, the defendant cannot be permitted to make any statements spoiling the reputation of the plaintiff and the Court cannot shut its eyes when such false allegations are circulated targeting innocent persons. To support her contention, she has relied upon the judgment reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 359 and prayed for decreeing the suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.

7. P.W.1, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about the nature of allegations levelled against the plaintiff by the defendant via e-mail to the forensic auditors of the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) on 26.05.2022, which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 11.10.2022 when the Registrar of IFMR forwarded the above email. On the side of the plaintiff, the following documents were exhibited:

                   1.Ex.P.1 – photocopy of the Emails dated 25.03.2022 and 27.03.2022 from the defendant regarding his resignation and accepting guilt of embezzlement and return of funds to the organisation.

                   2.Ex.P.2 – photocopy of Dr. Saurabh Mehrotra- Medical record dated 07.04.2022 of the plaintiff on added mental health stresses

                   3.Ex.P.3 – Photocopy of the email dated 26.05.2022 sent by the defendant defaming the plaintiff to the Registrar of IFMR Management.

                   4.Ex.P.4 - photocopy of the show cause notice dated 23.09.2022 sent to the defendant by the IFMR Management.

                   5.Ex.P.5 – photocopy of the email dated 11.10.2022 sent by the defendant to audit department and subsequently by Registrar to the plaintiff.

                   6.Ex.P.6 – original legal notice dated 16.12.2022 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.

                   7.Ex.P.7 – Original reply legal notice dated 20.12.2022 sent by the defendant.

                   8.Ex.P.8 – Photocopy of the employee disciplinary action report dated 07.02.2023 sent by the IFMR Management to the defendant.

8. The allegations to the forensic auditor made by the defendant via email on 26.05.2022 are marked as Ex.P.3. The legal notice dated 16.12.2022 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for slandering and defaming the plaintiff is marked as Ex.P.6 and the reply notice dated 20.12.2022 by the defendant to the plaintiff is marked as Ex.P.7, in which the defendant agreed that he had resigned from the job on 25.03.2022 and that he was in possession of misappropriated sum and he had refunded the money which he had swindled, which was also confirmed by the Employee Disciplinary Action Report dated 07.02.2023 marked as Ex.P.8.

9. In view of the pleadings the following issues are framed:

                   1.Whether the defendant made and published the imputation complained of against the plaintiff?

                   2.Whether the said imputation was defamatory and caused injury to the reputation of the plaintiff?

                   3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so, to what amount?

10. The documents produced by the plaintiff, particularly the e-mail dated 26.05.2022 and the subsequent communication forwarding the same, establish that the allegations concerning the plaintiff’s involvement in financial misconduct were made by the defendant and communicated to persons connected with the management and audit process of the institution.

11. The allegations are not merely an expression of dissatisfaction or criticism. They impute the plaintiff’s involvement in misappropriation of institutional funds, which is an allegation of serious professional and moral misconduct. An imputation of this nature is plainly capable of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society and, particularly, in the estimation of persons associated with his professional and academic work. The allegation is particularly serious because it concerns the plaintiff’s professional integrity and honesty. The defendant has not entered appearance, has not filed a written statement and has not entered the witness box. There is, therefore, no evidence before this Court controverting the plaintiff’s specific case regarding the making and communication of the allegations. The documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1 establishes the occurrence of the publication and nature of the imputations.

12. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.1,00,10,000/- towards loss of reputation. The Court is, however, required to determine the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record and not merely on the basis of the amount claimed.

13. There is no documentary evidence establishing any specific monetary loss of income, loss of employment, or loss of professional engagement, directly attributable to the defamatory allegations.

14. The plaintiff’s evidence principally establishes injury to his professional reputation, dignity and standing.

15. Therefore, while the plaintiff has established his entitlement to damages, the Court is unable to accept that the entire sum of Rs.1,00,10,000/- has been established as the appropriate measure of monetary compensation.

16. Having regard to the gravity of the imputation, the professional context in which it was made, the persons to whom it was communicated, the standing of the plaintiff, the distress caused him and the overall circumstances established by the evidence, this Court considers that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- would constitute reasonable compensation for the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.

17. In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:

                   (i) The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards damages and compensation for injury to his reputation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.

(ii) The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.