1. This is a suit for damages valued at rupees ten Million. The defendants remained absent and therefore, the suit has proceeded ex parte against them. Heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the affidavit-in-ex parte proof. The plaintiff has produced photostat copy of the issue weekly "Mazdoor Jiddojuhd" for 26th November to 2nd December, 1998, containing Article under the caption "NAM NIHAD TRADE UNION RAHNUMA KANIZ FATIMA KI LOOT KHASOOT KI KAHANI". In the above article wild allegations have been levelled against the plaintiff, who is a Labour Leader of National and International repute. The defendants have failed to appear and contest the suit. The suit is being decided ex pane. The result is that the allegations in the article have remained unsubstantiated and the denials are unrebutted. Mr. M.L.Shahani, in support of his contention that in a Islamic country/Society, the liberty, property as well as, honour and dignity of every person is to be protected and nobody can be allowed to defame any person without substantiating the allegations, has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28in the above cited judgment, an earlier judgment of his Lordship Mr.Justice Kaikaus (as Judge of High Court, as his lordship then was), in the case of Sharif v. Nawab Din PLD 1957 Lah. 283, has been cited with approval. In this judgment it has been observed as follows: "If damages are to be assessed only if the exact amount is proved, no damages can ever be decreed. Damages have so many time to be awarded by the rule of thumb but the fact that the exact amount is not determinable can be no reason for dismissal of suit."
2. I entirely agree with the contention of Mr. M.L.Shahani. It is one of the cardinal principles of law, to be observed in every civilized society and more particularly in a country which claims to be an Islamic Country. The human values are to be guarded and protected. The right to live is not confined to mere living but as observed by his lordship Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar, right to live means meaningful life, which can be enjoyed with dignity, PLD 1994 SC 693. The principle is required to be extended further to the cases where any defamation is caused, because the human dignity, honour and respect is more important than physical comforts and necessities.
3. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that no attempt on the part of any person individually, jointly or collectively to detract, defame or disgrace another person, thereby diminishing, decreasing and degrading the dignity, respect, reputation and value of life and more particularly on the part of Journalist, should be allowed to go with impunity. The situation is aggravated if it affects the honour and respect of any person in public life or in any concerned with collective good of the public, in any walk of life. There aresix basic Maqasid-ul-Sharah, which are to be protected and they are Hifzul Din (protection of faith), Hifzul Nafs (protection of life), Hifzul Mal (protection of property), HifzulAql (protection of intellect), Hifzul Nafs (protection of honour and dignity) and Hifzul Nafs (protection of paternity). In extreme case of causing damages to the honour and dignity and defaming by way of false allegations on the basis of sexual illicit relationship, it is punishable with Qazf, which provides punishment of 80 stripes and the evidence of such person is not to be accepted at all. In the case of other kinds of attack on the honour or dignity, the person who makes any such attempt should be saddled with financial liability by way of penalty or fine. Any such attempt is punishable in criminal as well as civil law both. In the present case a civil liability is under-consideration. However, the question would always be as to how much damages are to be allowed in such cases.
4. Normally a person claiming damages is required to prove the quantum of damages but in the case of defamation as under-consideration in this case, the only principle which can be adhered to is as propounded by his Lordship Mr. Justice Kaikaus, and approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment cited above. In such cases there can be no cavil to the proposition that the damage is caused. Mr.Shahani, has maintained that damages to the reputation is violative of the Fundamental Rights protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which provides that dignity of man shall be inviolable: So for the quantum of damages is concerned although the amount claimed is Rs,10 Millions but Mr. Shahani has stated that the amount of damages is not material. The material point is that the person causing damage to reputation, respect, honour and dignity of a man/woman should be made to realize that it is against the basic Human Rights protected in Islam, every civilized society and the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Recurrence of such instances should be curtailed and in the words of Mr. Shahani, the yellow journalism should be discouraged. I entirely agree with the proposition. In view of the above circumstances the suit is decreed against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees Hundred thousand) with cost.