Spicy IP blogger and NUJS Kolkata student Aparajita Lath was sent a letter threatening a defamation suit by the Times Publishing House, for her post that summarised the 19-year-old dispute between the Times Group and the UK’s Financial Times newspaper. [SpicyIP]
The notice threatening civil and criminal proceedings states: “Pursuant to the publication of the impugned article our Client has been contacted by several persons, inquiring about the same. Our client has been questioned and subjected to contempt and ridicule and has suffered immense prejudice and loss of goodwill, reputation, standing and goodwill in the industry.”
Spicy IP founder Shamnad Basheer responded to the notice, which was published on the Spicy IP blog:
“Aparajita’s post was based almost entirely on news stories published in Mint, a leading business paper, as you yourself admit in your notice. We’ve queried the folks at Mint, and apparently you’ve not sent them any legal notice as yet. We can only guess that you’re averse to picking people your own size.
“You also object to Aparajita’s statement that ‘this trademark saga throws light on the problems and obstacles foreign companies have to face when trying to enter the Indian market.’ Again, we assume that as a qualified lawyer, you are well aware of the distinction between an opinion and a fact. This is a fair comment/opinion expressed by Aparajita.”
In August 2012, pharma company Natco had sued Basheer for Rs 25 lakh claiming defamation.
Comments
I doubt Times is gonna make any major headway in this matter. Alternately, the said candidate can sue for mental harassment and coercion. Just a thought.
The individual should reply to the mail very carefully as Times is clearly attempting to create a paper trail for a litigation. Although doubt whether the allegations will be maintainable.
1. What is SpicyIP, a company, a firm or a NGO?
2. How can they represent the blogger if they do not have any contract with her in first place?
3. How can public servants (government employees) run a blog when they are paid by government (public money) to do their respective jobs, which does not, at all includes running blogs and commenting on various third parties.
4. Shamnad writes this response on behalf od SpicyIP and gives his details of designation at NUJS. Is he representing the blogger as part of SpicyIP or NUJS or both? Lot of conflicts here.
2. How do you know if a contract with her exists or not? Maybe its a simple letter from her to Shamnad to represent her.
3. Even public servants have some free time to take up their hobbies so unless you're aware of Shamnad's work being adversely affected by his blogging, I can't see why he can't blog and post comments on third parties.
4. He has merely provided them with the information that in addition to him writing this on behalf of SpicyIP, he also holds a position at NUJS. He clearly states in his second paragraph that he is responding on behalf of the blog.
1. What is SpicyIP, a company, a firm or a NGO?
2. How can they represent the blogger if they do not have any contract with her in first place?
3. How can public servants (government employees) run a blog when they are paid by government (public money) to do their respective jobs, which does not, at all includes running blogs and commenting on various third parties.
4. Shamnad writes this response on behalf od SpicyIP and gives his details of designation at NUJS. Is he representing the blogger as part of SpicyIP or NUJS or both? Lot of conflicts here.[/quote]
I too have this query that how could Mr. Shamnad for whom I have great respect, reply on her behalf?
Does your workplace allow you to post comments on LI? part of your job?
Does your contract with your workplace[quote name="SpicySpy"]Well, this is truly a very unprofessional response to a legal notice, obviously from someone who is not a practicing lawyer. Here are few genuine questions:
1. What is SpicyIP, a company, a firm or a NGO?
2. How can they represent the blogger if they do not have any contract with her in first place?
3. How can public servants (government employees) run a blog when they are paid by government (public money) to do their respective jobs, which does not, at all includes running blogs and commenting on various third parties.
4. Shamnad writes this response on behalf od SpicyIP and gives his details of designation at NUJS. Is he representing the blogger as part of SpicyIP or NUJS or both? Lot of conflicts here.[/quote]
[quote name="VJ"]While this may be an unprofessional response from the angle of a practicing lawyer, as Shamnad is not one, I think he is at liberty to respond in any manner he deems fit. While you can judge him for sending such a response, I don't think there is a prescribed format for sending such responses and while you or I may have chosen to be less scathing or sarcastic, I think he is perfectly entitled to send out a response that he would like. My responses to some of the genuine questions:
2. How do you know if a contract with her exists or not? Maybe its a simple letter from her to Shamnad to represent her.
3. Even public servants have some free time to take up their hobbies so unless you're aware of Shamnad's work being adversely affected by his blogging, I can't see why he can't blog and post comments on third parties.
4. He has merely provided them with the information that in addition to him writing this on behalf of SpicyIP, he also holds a position at NUJS. He clearly states in his second paragraph that he is responding on behalf of the blog.[/quote]
If anyone sends me a letter saying, we might sue you, surely anyone can reply on my behalf, including other bloggers, my boss, my worst enemy, etc...?
However, unless they're acting as my agent or other connected person, as Shamnad could be argued to be doing in this case, I'd assume that such communication would not necessarily be admissible in court?
This is a very cursory common sense reading, so please feel free to disagree but why the hue and cry?
Best wishes,
Kian
If anyone sends me a letter saying, we might sue you, surely anyone can reply on my behalf, including other bloggers, my boss, my worst enemy, etc...?
However, unless they're acting as my agent or other connected person, as Shamnad could be argued to be doing in this case, I'd assume that such communication would not necessarily be admissible in court?
This is a very cursory common sense reading, so please feel free to disagree but why the hue and cry?
Best wishes,
Kian[/quote]
Dear Kian
Hue and cry is first made by SpicyIP by publicising documents exchanged between two private parties. Even if legal notice is baseless, making it public and try to get sympathy by posting picture of blogger along with her educational background is totally nonsensical.
Regarding your point, anyone can write any letter on your behalf for sure, but in case of legal notice, only the person or his/her lawyer should respond.
There are hundreds of thousands of legal notices sent everyday in India and abroad, majority of which will not make sense in hindsight, but posting these documents in public as publicity stunt is not justified.
This is happening for second time I think and hence the hue and cry !
One of the scariest things about anti free speech laws such as the IT Act, defamation laws (particularly in the UK), and others like them, and the way they are being used, is the silence they often force on bloggers, newspapers and others, irrespective of the merits of their claim. The chilling effect that such actions have on that blogger and others, who will be afraid to write about a topic for fear of dealing with legal letters, is arguably even worse.
As such, publicising unfair legal threats is the main defence in a blogger's arsenal and, in my view, is entirely legal, proportionate and justified.
We have people here apparently worried about why a particular individual replied to a legal notice sent to another!
As for the reply,well, might not be a professional one but the notice seems to be asking for a scathing reply!
The main question here is what prompts a major publishing house to browbeat and intimidate a student, who has been reporting honestly about a set of facts. In this matter, following a read of Aparajita’s post and the articles referred by her, I didn’t notice any distortion of facts from her end. Being a blogger myself, I know I’ll always like to correct my posts/reports whenever I’ve been approached by any person with acceptable proof that what I’ve reported to be true is not the actual case. Also, being an avid reader of Spicy IP, I’ve noticed in past that the few factual errors that have been present in their posts from time to time have always been duly corrected by the blogger whenever someone has brought it to his/her attention. Which obviously begs the question, why would any logical person start with a defamation notice instead of simply communicating to the blogger that he feels the facts have been misrepresented, unless of course he’s sanguine that such misrepresentation is deliberate? And given Spicy IP carries the profiles of all its bloggers, it can’t be possible that Times was unaware of the fact that the blogger to whom they are ascribing such sordid motives is a young student, a fact which renders most of their allegations ridiculous? Coupled with this is the fact that Times is known to have resorted to similar browbeating tactics to stifle criticism even before. I recall the manner in which Pradyuman Maheshwari was persecuted and harassed for his Mediaah Webblog, wherein he’d criticized Times’ practice of accepting paid news. So, whether Times chooses to pursue this defamation suit or not, I believe the time has come for all bloggers to take a stand against bullying.
As far as some of the comments are concerned, I’m not going into an analysis of the content of the notice or its reply. I merely want to say that my legal education has not revealed any universal mandatory template for reply to a legal notice, which means that one can issue any sort of reply to it as he/she pleases. If the notice giver has a problem with the contents of the reply, he can always initiate another proceeding regarding it. What I find laughable are contentions such as how can Shamnad, a government employee, write blogs etc. Why, even in this very forum, I doubt any of the commentators, or for that matter, any academic blogger has received a professional mandate to blog/comment! And to extend that logic further, I believe Shamnad’s work profile dictates that he strives in every possible manner to further the causes of transparency, accountability and development in the Indian IP scenario and this matter and the whole Spicy IP blog, like a few others, are directly attuned to that objective.
Whether Aparajita and Shamnad have any contractual relationship that allows the latter to represent the former can only be debated by Times’ lawyer in a legal proceeding. And funnily enough, surely Aparajita would have objected to him replying to the notice had there been no such understanding between them! Knowing her personally, I can assure all that she has no such objection whatsoever. And while replying to a notice or writing a letter or for any formal documentation whatsoever, I don’t think there’s any legal requirement that I can’t reveal all my identities. Shamnad could have signed it off as Professor, NUJS, or MHRD Chair Professor, or Spicy IP blogger or King of Timbuktu (if he’s indeed such)! Unless and until the notice bears the MHRD/WBNUJS seal/template, it can’t be possibly regarded as a communication that has been officially made on behalf of such bodies! Surely the content of reply makes it clear that Shamnad is sending it on Aparajita’s behalf and not in his capacity as MHRD representative! And as for the question of whether an academic should blog or not, why on earth ever not? When it’s done by renowned foreign professors of the likes of Lawrence Lessig, Greg Mankiw, Lucian Bebchuk from Harvard or Ian Ayres from Yale or Patrick Bolton from Columbia, they are lauded for such stellar efforts. Even in India, there are instances of academics doing the same successfully and Shamnad is included in that group. It is disappointing to see such close-minded perspectives that only a ‘practicing lawyer’ possesses a hitherto unexplored and unassailable insight into legal issues!
I for one will keep on supporting Aparajita and Spicy IP in their efforts to fight back against the tirade by Times.
Some people seem to have missed the point! The real issue here doesn't seem to be about publicity or whether Prof. Shamnad can run a blog or who/how he signed off etc.! The issue evidently is about a law student who has been bullied by a big company for an article written by her in good faith and adequately referenced. Its about implementing what law schools teaches us - fighting for our rights and fighting against what is wrong! That is what SpicyIP , Prof. Shamnad and Aparajita are trying to do! Lets not raise unnecessary issues and detract from the main focus.
This is just messing around with an innocent student, clearly they know the abc's of victimisation pretty well.
Judging by the furore and this Time's legal notice has created, I doubt if they have the guts to actually go after Aparajita.
Moreover, SpicyIP is a brilliant set of people, and obviously support has poured in from all quarters- the who's who in the legal world, to this law student hoping these media heavy-weights learn their lesson pretty damn well this time round.
First, some of the comments highlight a lack of understanding of the facts at hand. Aparajita (who is a regular contributor to SpicyIP) blogged about the ongoing FTL-TPH dispute which reached the SC for the first time after 19 years of litigation in the High Courts of Delhi and Karnataka. In order to be comprehensive, Aparajita referred to certain articles from the Mint, including an interview of Harish Salve. Had some of the commenters read her post, it would have reflected not only an impeccable effort on her part to report the dispute but more importantly, nothing "defamatory" regarding TPH. Thus, the draconian language of the notice is entirely uncalled for.
Second, regardless of how people feel about the defamation notice, it is a fruitless exercise to question Shamnad Basheer's professional integrity. Regardless of whether he supports Aparajita because she's a part of SpicyIP or because she is a student of NUJS, the point is that such a legal notice is an attempt to infringe her fundamental right to express herself in addition to our fundamental right as an audience to educate ourselves.